Thesis Tanushree Mondal PDF

Municipal waste management through vermicomposting and its
impact on crop growth, physiology, yield, soil health, soil

biodiversity and carbon conservation under paddy and mustard
cultivation in old alluvial soil zone of Burdwan district, West Bengal
THESIS SUBMTTED FOR PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR

OF PHILOSOPHY IN SCIENCE (ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE) OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF BURDWAN
2014
By
TANUSHREE MONDAL, M.Sc (Env Sc)
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
THE UNIVERSITY OF BURDWAN
BURDWAN – 713104
WEST BENGAL, INDIA

DEDICATED TO
MY BELOVED PARENTS
Mr. Bidyut Kumar Mondal, Smt. Monalisa Mondal
&
MY HUSBAND
Mr. ROHIT DHALL
Department of Environmental Science
THE UNIVERSITY OF BURDWAN
GOLAPBAG, BURDWAN-713104
WEST BENGAL, INDIA
PROFESSOR JAYANTA KUMAR DATTA DATE: 15/12/2014
Certificate
This is to certified that Smt. Tanushree Mondal, M.Sc, carried out the investigation entitled
“Municipal waste management through vermicomposting and its impact on crop growth,
physiology, yield, soil health, soil biodiversity and carbon conservation under paddy and
mustard cultivation in old alluvial soil zone of Burdwan district, West Bengal” under the
supervision and guidance of Prof. Jayanta Kumar Datta. Smt. Mondal has fulfilled all the
requirements (including the presentation of seminar talks on dated 19/11/2014) and followed the
rules and regulations relating to the nature and prescribed period of research as laid down by the
university as part of her Ph.D. criteria. The thesis representing the result of original investigation
made by Smt. Mondal is submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of Ph.D (Science) of The
University of Burdwan. This work has not been submitted previously anywhere for any degree
whatsoever by either her or anyone else.
(Prof. J.K.Datta)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is great pleasure to have opportunity to recall all those who in some way or other actively or
passively set the track in right direction to complete the research assignment. Prof. J.K.Datta who
was coordinator of M.Phil course in Environmental Science for three years and founder Head of
the Department of Environmental Science of this University from May, 2004 – May,2006 and
presently the Director of BKCRTC from February,2012 to till now. Prof. Datta is not only my
guide but also primary driving force in conducting my research work. He conceptualizes the
topic and his living inspiration impelled me to move ahead through all problems. I express my
deep sense of gratitude to him for his affectionate encouragement, suggestions and guidance both
in execution of experimental works and preparation of manuscript.
I extend my sincere thanks to Dr. Naba Kumar Mondal, Assistance professor,

Department of Environmental Science, Burdwan University for helping me in statistical and soil
analysis and for paper writing and publication.
I am grateful to Prof. A. R. Ghosh, presently The Head of the Department, Department of

Environmental Science, Burdwan University for helping me in various ways to complete this
Ph.D thesis work.
I am indebted to Dr. Srimanta Gupta, Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental

Science, Burdwan University who has been constant motivator in every phase of my research
assignment.
I am highly grateful to Dr. Shampa Dutta, guest faculty (contractual) of Department of

Environmental Science, Burdwan University for her support and encouragement.
I am thankful to Dr Sudipto Mondal, Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental

Science, Burdwan University for helping me in laboratory work.
I am extremely grateful to Dr. Tapan Garai, soil scientist of Kalna Farm for his kind
cooperation regarding micronutrient analysis of my soil samples in Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotometer.
I am thankful to Dr. Manas Mukhopadhyay for helping me in various ways to complete
this Ph.D thesis work.
I like to convey my hearty thanks to Dr. Buddhodeb Mukhopadhay, Mr. Shankar Nag and
Mr. Gobinda Baidya for their cooperation and active help.
I extend my thanks to all my fellow research scholars for helping me in my field work,
laboratory work, and thesis writing. I shall remain grateful to all staff members of University
farm and BKCRTC of Burdwan University for their help and encouragement.
Finally I express my heartiest appreciation to my mother Smt. Monalisa Mondal, my

father Sri Bidyut Kumar Mondal, my husband Sri Rohit Dhall and my younger sister Miss
Tapashree Mondal for their spontaneous enthusiasm and help.
Date:
Place: (TANUSHREE MONDAL)

CONTENTS
Chapter Particulars Page No.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS USED
1 INTRODUCTION 1-9
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 10-34
3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 35-77
3.1 Experimental site 35

3.2 Climatic Condition 35-41
3.3 Experimental Details 42-52
3.3.1 Title of the experiment 45
3.3.2 Experimental Design 45-46
3.3.3 Details of experimental treatments 47-52
3.4 Method of recording observations 53-78
3.4.1 Growth attributes of Mustard 53
3.4.1.1 Plant height 53
3.4.1.2 Length of root 53
3.4.1.3 Angle on branching 53
3.4.2 Growth attributes of Paddy 54
3.4.2.1 Plant height 54
3.4.2.2 Length of root 54
3.4.2.3 No. Of tiller per hill 54
3.4.3 Yield component, their associate characters and 54-55
yield of Mustard
3.4.3.1 Length and diameter of siliquae 54
3.4.3.2 Number of seeds per siliquae 54
3.4.3.3 Number of siliquaes per plant 54
3.4.3.4 Test weight of seeds 55
3.4.3.5 Seed yield 55
3.4.3.6 Straw yield 55
3.4.4 Yield component, their associate characters and 55-56
yield of Paddy
3.4.4.1 Number of panicle per hill 55
3.4.4.2 Panicle length 55
3.4.4.3 Number of tiller per hill 55
3.4.4.4 Number of panicle per hill 55
3.4.4.5 Number of grains per panicle 56
3.4.4.6 Number of chaffy grains per panicle 56
3.4.4.7 Number of filled grains per panicle 56
3.4.4.8 Test weight of grains 56
3.4.4.9 Grain yield 56
3.4.4.10 Straw yield 56
3.5 Leaf Area Index (LAI) 56-57
3.6 Leaf Area Ratio (LAR) 57
3.7 Leaf Area Duration (LAD) 57
3.8 Crop Growth Rate (CGR) 57
3.9 Net Assimilation Rate (NAR) 58
3.10 Biomass 58
3.11 Harvest Index 58
3.12 Estimation of Chlorophyll from leaf 58-59
3.13 Estimation of total soluble sugar 59-60
3.14 Estimation of Proline 61-62
3.15 Photosynthetic rate 62
3.16 Methods of soil samples collection and analysis 62-75
3.16.1 Estimation of Soil Temperature 62-63
3.16.2 Estimation of Soil Specific Gravity 63
3.16.3 Estimation of Soil Moisture Content 63-64
3.16.4 Estimation of Soil Bulk Density 64
3.16.5 Estimation of Soil Particle Density 64-65
3.16.6 Estimation of Soil Porosity 65
3.16.7 Estimation of H from soil 66
P
3.16.8 Conductivity of soil 67
3.16.9 Estimation of Organic Carbon from soil 67-68
3.16.10 Estimation of soil available nitrogen 68-69
3.16.11 Estimation of soil available potassium 69-70
3.16.12 Estimation of NaHCO3 extractable phosphate 70-71
phosphorous
3.16.13 Estimation of DTPA extractable Fe, Cu, Mn, Zn 71-72
3.16.14 Analysis of soil biological parameters 72-75
3.16.14.1 Standard plate count of Bacteria from 72-73
soil
3.16.14.2 Standard plate count of Fungi from soil 74-75
3.17 Estimation of oil in oil seeds 75
3.18 Statistical analysis 76
3.19 Methods of preparation of vermicompost 76
3.20 Taxonomic classification of Eisenia fetida 77
3.21 Economic analysis 77
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 76-107
4.1 Plant height and Root length of mustard and paddy 78-79
4.2 Angle of primary and secondary branches of 79
mustard
4.3 Number of siliquae/plant, length of siliquae and 79-80
seeds/siliquae of mustard
4.4 Effective tiller/hill, panicle length and weight of 80-81
ten panicles per plot of paddy
4.5 81
Percentage of chaffy grains per panicle, number of
chaffy grains per panicle, number of spikelets per
panicle and number of filled grain per panicle of
paddy
4.6 Test weight of seeds of mustard and grains of 81-82
paddy
4.7 Seed Yield 82
4.8 Straw Yield 82-83
4.9 Oil content of mustard seeds 83
4.10 Biomass 83-84
4.11 Leaf Area Index (LAI) 84-85
4.12 Leaf Area Ratio (LAR) 85-86
4.13 Leaf Area Duration (LAD) 86
4.14 Crop Growth Rate (CGR) 87
4.15 Net Assimilation Rate (NAR) 87-88
4.16 Relative Growth Rate (RGR) 88
4.17 Harvest Index 88
4.18 Total chlorophyll content in physiologically active 89-90
leaf of mustard and flag leaf of paddy
4.19 Total soluble sugar in physiologically active leaf of 90-91
mustard and flag leaf of paddy
4.20 Proline in physiologically active leaf of mustard 91
and flag leaf of paddy
4.21 Bacterial population (CFU g-1) of the experimental 92
soil (before land preparation for seed sowing and
after harvesting of crop)
4.22 Fungal population (CFU g-1) of the experimental 93
4.23 Temperature (ᵒ C) of the experimental soil (before 93
land preparation for seed sowing and after
harvesting of crop)
4.24 Moisture content (%)of the experimental soil 94
(before land preparation for seed sowing and after
harvesting of crop)
4.25 Specific gravity (g/cc), Bulk density (g/cc) and 94-96
particle density (g/cc) of the experimental soil
harvesting of crop)
4.26 Porosity (%) and water holding capacity (%) of the 96
experimental soil (before land preparation for seed
sowing and after harvesting of crop)
4.27 97
pH of the experimental soil (before land
preparation for seed sowing and after harvesting of
crop)
4.28 98
Electrical conductivity (EC) of the experimental
4.29 98-99
Organic Carbon (%) of the experimental soil
harvesting of crop)
4.30 99-100
Available nitrogen of the experimental soil (before
land preparation for seed sowing and after
harvesting of crop)
4.31 Available potassium of the experimental soil 100-102
harvesting of crop)
4.32 Available phosphorous of the experimental soil 102-103
harvesting of crop)
4.33 Available Copper (kg/ha) of the experimental soil 103-104
harvesting of crop)
4.34 Available Iron (kg/ha) of the experimental soil 104-105
harvesting of crop)
4.35 Available Manganese (kg/ha) of the experimental 105-106
4.36 Available Zinc (kg/ha) of the experimental soil 106
harvesting of crop)
4.37 Economic analysis 107
Tables and Figures 108-163
5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 164-169
6 RECOMMENDATION 170
7 BIBLIOGRAPHY 171-193
LIST OF TABLES
No. Description Pages
3.1 Meteorological details (week wise) during the first experimental 38
year (2011-12) of Mustard cultivation.
3.2 Meteorological details (week wise) during the second experimental 39
year (2012-13) of Mustard cultivation
3.3 Meteorological details (week wise) during the first experimental 40
year (2012) of Paddy cultivation.
3.4 Meteorological details (week wise) during the second experimental 41
year (2013) of Paddy cultivation.
3.5 List of parameters studied for soil with methods used and detail of 42-43
statistical analysis
3.6 Physical, chemical and biological characteristics of Initial soil for 43
mustard cultivation (0-15cm depth)
3.7 Chemical and biological characteristics of Vermicompost used for 43
mustard cultivation
3.8 Physical, chemical and biological characteristics of Initial soil for 44
paddy cultivation (0-15cm depth)
3.9 Chemical and biological characteristics of Vermicompost used for 44
paddy cultivation
3.10 Experimental design for Mustard 45
3.11 Experimental design for Paddy 46
3.12 Calendar of operations for mustard 48-50
3.13 Calendar of operations for paddy 50-52
3.14 77
Taxonomic classification of Eisenia fetida (Cuevas, 2005)
4.1 Growth attributes (Plant height on 60 DAS, Root length on 60 DAS 108
and Leaf area index on 45 DAS) of Mustard (Year 2011-12 and
2012-13)
4.2 Growth attributes (Plant height on 60 DAT, Root length on 60 DAT 108
and Leaf area index on 45 DAT) of Paddy (Year 2012 and 2013)
4.3 Growth attributes (Dry weight of root, shoot and leaves on 45 DAS) 109
of Mustard (Year 2011-12 and 2012-13)
4.4 Growth attributes (Dry weight of root, shoot and leaves on 45 DAT) 109
of Paddy (Year 2012 and 2013)
4.5 Growth attributes (Angle on Primary and Secondary Branching) of 110
Mustard (Year 2011-12 and 2012-13)
4.6 Growth attributes (Effective tiller per hill and Panicle length) of 110
Paddy (Year 2012 and 2013)
4.7 Yield attributes (Siliquae length and Siliquae diameter) of Mustard 111
(Year 2011-12 and 2012-13)
4.8 Yield attributes (Weight of 10 panicles per plot and No. of spikelet’s 111
per panicle) of Paddy (Year 2012 and 2013)
4.9 Yield attributes (No. of seeds per siliquae and No. of siliquae per 112
plant) of Mustard (Year 2011-12 and 2012-13)
4.10 Yield attributes (No. of filled grain per panicle and Percentage of 112
chaffy grains per panicle) of Paddy (Year 2012 and 2013)
4.11 Yield attributes (Test weight and Oil content) of Mustard (Year 113
2011-12 and 2012-13)
4.12 Yield attributes (No. of chaffy per panicle and Test weight) of 113
Paddy (Year 2012 and 2013)
4.13 Yield (Seed yield and Straw yield) and harvest index of Mustard 114
(Year 2011-12 and 2012-13)
4.14 Yield (Seed yield, Straw yield and Biological yield) and harvest 114
index of Paddy (Year 2012 and 2013)
4.15 Economic analysis of Mustard (Year 2011-12 and 2012-13) 115
4.16 Economic analysis of Paddy (Year 2012 and 2013) 115
4.17 Leaf area ratio (on 45 DAS), leaf area duration (on 45-60 DAS) and 116
crop growth rate (on 45-60 DAS) of Mustard (Year 2011-12 and
2012-13)
4.18 Leaf area ratio (on 45 DAT), leaf area duration (on 45-60 DAT) and 116
crop growth rate (on 45-60 DAT) of Paddy (Year 2012 and 2013)
4.19 Net assimilation rate (on 45-60 DAS) and relative growth rate (on 117
45-60 DAS) of Mustard (Year 2011-12 and 2012-13)
4.20 Net assimilation rate (on 45-60 DAT) and relative growth rate (on 117
45-60 DAT) of Paddy (Year 2012 and 2013)
4.21 Chlorophyll content (on 45 DAS) in physiologically active leaf and 118
photosynthetic rate (on 45 DAS) of Mustard (Year 2011-12 and
2012-13)
4.22 Chlorophyll content (on 45 DAT) in flag leaf and photosynthetic 118
rate (on 45 DAT) of Paddy (Year 2012 and 2013)
4.23 Total soluble sugar (on 45 DAS) and proline content(on 45 DAS) in 119
physiologically active leaf of Mustard (Year 2011-12 and 2012-13)
4.24 Total soluble sugar (on 45 DAT) and proline content (on 45 DAT) 119
in flag leaf of Paddy (Year 2012 and 2013)
4.25 Soil bacterial colony count in before sowing and after harvesting 120
soil of Mustard cultivation (Year 2011-12 and 2012-13)
4.26 Soil bacterial colony count in before transplantation and after 120
harvesting soil of Paddy cultivation (Year 2012 and 2013)
4.27 Soil fungal colony count in before sowing and after harvesting soil 121
of Mustard cultivation (Year 2011-12 and 2012-13)
4.28 Soil fungal colony count in before transplantation and after 121
4.29 Soil specific gravity and temperature in before sowing and after 122
harvesting soil of Mustard cultivation (Year 2011-12 and 2012-13)
4.30 Soil specific gravity and temperature in before transplantation and 122
after harvesting soil of Paddy cultivation (Year 2012 and 2013)
4.31 Bulk density and Particle density in before sowing and after 123
4.32 Bulk density and Particle density in before transplantation and after 123
4.33 Porosity and water holding capacity in before sowing and after 124
4.34 Porosity and water holding capacity in before transplantation and 124
after harvesting soil of Paddy cultivation (Year 2012 and 2013)
4.35 Moisture content in before sowing and after harvesting soil of 125
Mustard and paddy cultivation (Year 2011-12 and 2012-13 for
mustard and year 2012 and 2013 for paddy)
4.36 125
Electrical conductivity and PH in before sowing and after harvesting
4.37 Electrical conductivity and PH in before sowing and after harvesting 126
soil of Paddy cultivation (Year 2012 and 2013)
4.38 Available nitrogen and available phosphorous in before sowing and 126
after harvesting soil of Mustard cultivation (Year 2011-12 and
2012-13)
4.39 Available nitrogen and available phosphorous in before sowing and 127
after transplantation soil of Paddy cultivation (Year 2012 and 2013)
4.40 Available potassium and organic carbon in before sowing and after 127
4.41 Available potassium and organic carbon in before transplantation 128
and after harvesting soil of Paddy cultivation (Year 2012 and 2013)
4.42 Copper and iron in before sowing and after harvesting soil of 128
Mustard cultivation (Year 2011-12 and 2012-13)
4.43 Copper and iron in before transplantation and after harvesting soil of 129
Paddy cultivation (Year 2012 and 2013)
4.44 Manganese and Zinc in before sowing and after harvesting soil of 129
4.45 Manganese and Zinc in before sowing and after harvesting soil of 130
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Particular Page No.
3.1 Study area of Mustard 36
3.2 Study area of Paddy 37
3.3 Layout of the experiment 2011, 2012 and 2013 for both the crops 47
MUSTARD
4.1 Root length (cm) on 60 DAS (2011-12 and 2012-13) of Mustard 131
4.2 Plant height (cm) on 60 DAS (2011-12 and 2012-13) of Mustard 131
4.3 Dry weight of root and shoot (g) on 45 DAS (2011-12 and 2012- 131
13) of Mustard
4.4 Dry weight of leaves (g) on 45 DAS (2011-12 and 2012-13) of 131
Mustard
4.5 Dry weight of siliquae (g) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of Mustard 132
4.6 Angle of primary branching (º) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of Mustard 132
4.7 Angle of secondary branching (º) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of 132
Mustard
4.8 Siliquae length (cm) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of Mustard 132
4.9 Siliquae diameter (cm) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of Mustard 133
4.10 No. of seeds per siliquae (2011-12 and 2012-13) of Mustard 133
4.11 No. of siliquae per plant (2011-12 and 2012-13) of Mustard 133
4.12 Test weight (g) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of Mustard 133
4.13 Seed yield (t/ha) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of Mustard 134
4.14 Straw yield (t/ha) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of Mustard 134
4.15 Oil content (%) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of Mustard 134
4.16 Harvest index (%) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of Mustard 134
4.17 Leaf area index (45 DAS) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of Mustard 135
4.18 Leaf area ratio (m2/g) (45 DAS) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of 135
Mustard
4.19 Leaf area duration (45-60 DAS) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of 135
Mustard
4.20 Crop growth rate (g/m2/day) (45-60 DAS) (2011-12 and 2012-13) 135
of Mustard
4.21 Net assimilation rate (g/m2/day) (45-60 DAS) (2011-12 and 2012- 136
13) of Mustard
4.22 Relative growth rate (g/m2/day) (45-60 DAS) (2011-12 and 2012- 136
13) of Mustard
4.23 Chlorophyll content (mg/g FW) (45 DAS) (2011-12 and 2012-13) 136
of Mustard
4.24 Photosynthetic rate (µmol/m2/S) (45 DAS) (2011-12 and 2012-13) 136
of Mustard
4.25 Soluble sugar (mg/g FW) (45 DAS) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of 137
Mustard
4.26 Proline content (mg/g FW) (45 DAS) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of 137
Mustard
4.27 Bacterial colony count (CFU/g of dry soil) (before sowing) (2011- 137
12 and 2012-13)of Mustard
4.28 Bacterial colony count (CFU/g of dry soil) (after harvesting) 137
(2011-12 and 2012-13)of Mustard
4.29 Fungal colony count (CFU/g of dry soil) (before sowing) (2011-12 138
and 2012-13) of Mustard
4.30 Fungal colony count (CFU/g of dry soil) (after harvesting) (2011- 138
12 and 2012-13) of Mustard
4.31 Specific gravity (g/cc) (before sowing ) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of 138
Mustard
4.32 Specific gravity (g/cc) (after harvesting) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of 138
Mustard
4.33 Moisture content (%) (before sowing) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of 139
mustard
4.34 Moisture content (%) (after harvesting) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of 139
mustard
4.35 Bulk density (g/cc) (before sowing) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of 139
mustard
4.36 Bulk density (g/cc) (after harvesting) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of 139
mustard
4.37 Particle density (g/cc) (before sowing) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of 140
mustard
4.38 Particle density (g/cc) (after harvesting) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of 140
mustard
4.39 Porosity (%) (before sowing) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of mustard 140
4.40 Porosity (%) (after harvesting) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of mustard 140
4.41 Water holding capacity (%) (before sowing) (2011-12 and 2012- 141
13) of mustard
4.42 Water holding capacity (%) (after harvesting) (2011-12 and 2012- 141
13) of mustard
4.43 Soil temperature (ºC) (before sowing) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of 141
mustard
4.44 Soil temperature (ºC) (after harvesting) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of 141
mustard
4.45 Soil electrical conductivity (µmoh/cm) (before sowing) (2011-12 142
and 2012-13) of mustard
4.46 Soil electrical conductivity (µmoh/cm) (after harvesting) (2011-12 142
and 2012-13) of mustard
4.47 Soil PH (before sowing) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of mustard 142
4.48 Soil PH (after harvesting) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of mustard 142

4.49 Available nitrogen (mg/kg) (before sowing) (2011-12 and 2012- 143
13) of mustard
4.50 Available nitrogen (mg/kg) (after harvesting) (2011-12 and 2012- 143
13) of mustard
4.51 Available phosphorous (mg/kg) (before sowing) (2011-12 and 143
2012-13) of mustard
4.52 Available phosphorous (mg/kg) (after harvesting) (2011-12 and 143
2012-13) of mustard
4.53 Available potassium (mg/kg) (before sowing) (2011-12 and 2012- 144
13) of mustard
4.54 Available potassium (mg/kg) (after harvesting) (2011-12 and 144
2012-13) of mustard
4.55 Organic carbon (%) (before sowing) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of 144
mustard
4.56 Organic carbon (%) (after harvesting) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of 144
mustard
4.57 Copper (mg/kg) (before sowing) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of 145
mustard
4.58 Copper (mg/kg) (after harvesting) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of 145
mustard
4.59 Iron (mg/kg) (before sowing) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of mustard 145
4.60 Iron (mg/kg) (after harvesting) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of mustard 145
4.61 Manganese (mg/kg) (before sowing) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of 146
mustard
4.62 Manganese (mg/kg) (after harvesting) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of
mustard
4.63 Zinc (mg/kg) (before sowing) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of mustard 147
4.64 Zinc (mg/kg) (after harvesting) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of mustard 147
4.65 Cost:benefit ratio of mustard 147
PADDY 147
4.66 Root length (cm) on 60 DAT (2012 and 2013) of paddy 148
4.67 Plant height (cm) on 60 DAT (2012 and 2013) of paddy 148
4.68 Dry weight of root and shoot (g) on 45 DAT (2012 and 2013) of 148
paddy
4.69 Dry weight of leaves (g) on 45 DAT (2012 and 2013) of paddy 148
4.70 No. of effective tiller per hill (2012 and 2013) of paddy 149
4.71 Panicle length (cm) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 149
4.72 Weight of 10 panicles per plot (g) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 149
4.73 Percentage of chaffy grains per panicle (%)(2012 and 2013) of paddy 149
4.74 No. of chaffy per panicle of paddy 150
4.75 No. of filled grain per panicle of paddy 150
4.76 Test weight (g) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 150
4.77 Grain yield (t/ha) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 150
4.78 Straw yield (t/ha) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 151
4.79 Biological yield (t/ha) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 151
4.80 Harvest index (%) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 151
4.81 Leaf area index (45 DAT) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 151
4.82 Leaf area ratio (m2/g) (45 DAT) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 152
4.83 Leaf area duration (45-60 DAT) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 152
4.84 Crop growth rate (g/m2/day) (45-60 DAT) (2012 and 2013) of 152
paddy
4.85 Net assimilation rate (g/m2/day) (45-60 DAT) (2012 and 2013) of 152
paddy
4.86 Relative growth rate (g/m2/day) (45-60 DAT) (2012 and 2013) of 153
paddy
4.87 Chlorophyll content (mg/g FW) (45 DAT) (2012 and 2013) of 153
paddy
4.88 Photosynthetic rate (µmol/m2/S) (45 DAT) (2012 and 2013) of 153
paddy
4.89 Soluble sugar (mg/g FW) (45 DAT) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 153
4.90 Proline content (mg/g FW) (45 DAT) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 154
4.91 Moisture content (%) (before transplantation) (2012 and 2013) of 154
paddy
4.92 Moisture content (%) (after harvesting) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 154
4.93 Bulk density (g/cc) (before transplantation) (2012 and 2013) of 154
paddy
4.94 Bulk density (g/cc) (after harvesting) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 155
4.95 Particle density (g/cc) (before transplantation) (2012 and 2013) of 155
paddy
4.96 Particle density (g/cc) (after harvesting) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 155
4.97 Porosity (%) (before transplantation) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 155
4.98 Porosity (%) (after harvesting) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 156
4.99 Water holding capacity (%) (before transplantation) (2012 and 156
2013) of paddy
4.100 Water holding capacity (%) (after harvesting) (2012 and 2013) of 156
paddy
4.101 Specific gravity (g/cc) (before transplantation) (2012 and 2013) of 156
paddy
4.102 Specific gravity (g/cc) (after harvesting) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 157
4.103 Soil temperature (ºC) (before transplantation) (2012 and 2013) of 157
paddy
4.104 Soil temperature (ºC) (after harvesting) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 157
4.105 Bacterial colony count (CFU/g of dry soil) (before transplantation) 157
(2012 and 2013) of paddy
4.106 Bacterial colony count (CFU/g of dry soil) (after harvesting) (2012 158
and 2013) of paddy
4.107 Fungal colony count (CFU/g of dry soil) (before transplantation) 158
4.108 Fungal colony count (CFU/g of dry soil) (after harvesting) (2012 158
and 2013) of paddy
4.109 Soil electrical conductivity (µmoh/cm) (before transplantation) 158
4.110 Soil electrical conductivity (µmoh/cm) (after harvesting) of paddy 159
4.112 Soil PH (before transplantation) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 159
4.112 Soil PH (after harvesting) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 159
4.113 Available nitrogen (mg/kg) (before transplantation) (2012 and 159
2013) of paddy
4.114 Available nitrogen (mg/kg) (after harvesting) (2012 and 2013) of 160
paddy
4.115 Available phosphorous (mg/kg) (before transplantation) (2012 and 160
2013) of paddy
4.116 Available phosphorous (mg/kg) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 160
4.117 Available potassium (mg/kg) (before transplantation) (2012 and 160
2013) of paddy
4.118 Available potassium (mg/kg) (after harvesting) (2012 and 2013) of 161
paddy
4.119 Organic carbon (%)(before transplantation) (2012 and 2013) of 161
paddy
4.120 Organic carbon (%) (after harvesting) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 161
4.121 Copper (mg/kg) (before transplantation) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 161
4.122 Copper (mg/kg) (after harvesting) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 162
4.123 Iron (mg/kg) (before transplantation) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 162
4.124 Iron (mg/kg) (after harvesting) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 162
4.125 Manganese (mg/kg) (before transplantation) (2012 and 2013) of 162
paddy
4.126 Manganese (mg/kg) (after harvesting) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 163
4.127 Zinc (mg/kg) (before transplantation) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 163
4.128 Zinc (mg/kg) (after harvesting) (2012 and 2013) of paddy 163
4.129 Cost:benefit ratio of mustard 163
ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS USED
@ At the rate
AR Analytical reagent
DMRT Duncan Multiple Range Test
BSA Bovine Serum Albumine
CFU Colony forming units
CGR Crop growth rate
cm Centimetre
CD Critical difference
LSD Least significant difference
C Degree Celsius
DAS Days after sowing
EC Electrical Conductivity
FW Fresh weight
EAN Enhance ammonium sulphate
Fig Figure
FAS Ferrous ammonium sulphate
g Gram
Ha Hectre
Kg ha-1 Kilogram per hectre
LAD Leaf area duration
LAI Leaf area index
LAR Leaf area ratio
mg Miligram
mg.g-1 Miligram per gram
µg Microgram
NAR Net assimilation rate
NPK Nitrogen-phosphorous-potassium
NS Not significant
OD Optical density
OC Organic carbon
SEm Standard error of mean
t.ha-1 Tonne per hecter
TCA Trichloro acetic acid
Introduction
A griculture continues to be the backbone of the Indian economy. After sixty-seven years of
Indian independence, it is appropriate to look at the agricultural development process-the
success achieved areas where India could have done better, the challenges it faces and the
required reorientation in the development process.
There has been a significant increase in MSW (Municipal solid waste) generation in India
in the last few decades. This is largely because of rapid population growth and economic
development in the country. Solid waste management has become a major environmental issue in
India. As a result, about 50 million tons municipal waste is being generated every year in various
cities of India (CPCB, 2000; Sharholy et al., 2008; Saha et al., 2010; Hazra and Goel, 2009;
Kumar et al., 2009). This annual generation of waste has generated the challenging issues related
to disposal of waste (Idris et al., 2004; Kumar et al., 2009). At present, the management of
organic waste is a major concern worldwide, as unscientific disposal of waste can adversely
affect the environment by causing offensive odor, ground water contamination and soil pollution
(Garg et al., 2006).
Application of chemical fertilizers has contributed significantly to the huge increase in
the world food production. As world population is increasing almost exponentially, there is an
urgent need to consider other novel ways of increasing food production that are compatible with
sustainability and the retention of environmental quality. In India, the chemical fertilizers,
especially inorganic nitrogenous fertilizers, are not available of economic prices. Although the
use of chemical fertilizer for agricultural crops is much less in India (160 kg ha-1) in comparison
to Netherlands (632 kg ha-1), Japan (428 kg ha-1) and Korea (422 kg ha-1), still the non judicious
use of chemical fertilizers and double cropping with similar crops sometimes makes no use of
chemical fertilizer to the crops, it percolates down to groundwater when evapo-transpiration is
less than rain water and irrigation water and creates a number of environmental problems.
This fateful scenario of chemical agriculture augmented the movement of organic

farming, a growing interest in alternative farming systems has occurred, as a means of addressing
the environmental concerns associated with modern large scale agriculture. Organic farming is
defined as ‘a production system which avoids or largely excludes the use of synthetically
compound fertilizers, pesticides, growth regulators, and livestock feed additives’. Organic
farming system is not new in India and is being followed from ancient time. It is a method of
farming system which primarily aimed at cultivating the land and raising crops in such a way as
[1]
Introduction
to keep the soil alive and in good health by use of organic waste and other biological material
along with beneficial microbes (biofertilizers) to release nutrients to crops for increased
sustainable production in an eco-friendly, pollution free environment. Among the biofertilizers,
nitrogenous biofertilizers harvest atmospheric nitrogen and converts into ammoniacal form
which in due course is made available to the plants or it released in the soil phosphate already
present in the soil and makes it available for use of plants. With the introduction of green
revolution technologies the modern agriculture is getting more and more dependent upon the
steady supply of synthetic inputs (mainly fertilizers), which are products of fossil fuel. Excessive
dependence of modern agriculture and the supply of these synthetic inputs and the adverse effect
being noticed due to their excessive and imbalanced use the scientific fraternity to look for
alternatives. To overcome the deficit in nutrient supply and to overcome the adverse effects of
chemical fertilizer it is suggested that efforts should be made to exploit all the constraints to
nitrogen fixation including drought (Sinclair et al., 1987), soil acidity, nitrogen fertilization and
nutrient limitations. Management of soil acidity for temperate and tropical regions has often
differed but increasingly depends on acid tolerant legume cultivars and Rhizobia (Howieson et
al., 1995), with soil liming only to a pH at which Al and Mn are no longer toxic.
Vermitechnology is the use of surface and subsurface local varieties of earthworm in

composting and management of soil (Ismail, 2005). Earthworms along with other animals have
played an important role in regulating soil processes, maintaining soil fertility and in bringing
about nutrient cycling (Ismail, 1997). Vermiculture is the culture of earthworms and vermicast is
the fecal matter released by the earthworms (Ismail, 1997). It is the basic culture that is
employed for the production of vermicompost i.e., conversion of the organic waste into organic
fertilizer. In recent years, vermicomposting has emerged as an efficient technology for recycling
wide range of organic waste into good quality compost with the help of epigenic group of
earthworms. Special types of earthworms like Eisenia foetida, Eudrilus sp. etc. are used for the
production of vermicompost. (Chaudhuri et al., 2003).There are several species of earthworms
like Eudrilus eugeniae, Eisenia foetida, Perionyx excavatus and Lumbricus rubellus (Garg et al.,
2006; Suthar, 2007, 2009; Mainoo et al., 2009) which are mostly used for vermicomposting.
However, E. foetida is the most common and favorable species of earthworms for
vermicomposting of vegetables waste as they have high tolerance to environmental variables like
pH, temperature and moisture content (Kaviraj and Sharma, 2003; Garg et al., 2006; Suthar,
[2]
Introduction
2007, 2009). This is an essential part in organic farming today. Vermiwash is a liquid that is
collected after the passage of water through a column of worm action and is very useful as a
foliar spray. It is a collection of excretory products and mucus secretion of earthworms along
with micronutrients from the soil organic molecules. These are transported to the leaf, shoots and
other parts of the plants in the natural ecosystem (Ansari et al., 2010). Vermiwash, if collected
properly, is a clear and transparent, pale yellow coloured fluid (Ismail, 1997). The regular inputs
of feed materials for earthworms can be in the form of agro waste, kitchen waste and nitrogen
rich materials such as cattle dung, goat dung and pig manure (Ismail, 2005). It can be easily
prepared, has excellent properties, and is harmless to plants. The earthworms fragment, the
organic waste substrates, stimulate microbial activity greatly and increase rates of mineralization
(Ansari et al., 2010). The soil enriched with vermicompost provides additional substances that
are not found in chemical fertilizers (Kale, 1998). The intestine of earthworms have been rich
occurrence of different microorganisms, enzymes etc. which get mixed with the digested food
and help the essential minerals to decompose rapidly to form vermicompost (Kaushik and Garg,
2004). It also increases the quality, fertility and mineral content of the soil structure. It enhances
soil aeration, texture and jilt thereby reducing soil compaction. The ability of some species of
earthworm to consume and breakdown a wide range of organic residues such as sewage sludge,
animal wastes, crop residues and industrial refuse is well known (Mitchell and Edward, 1997;
Edwards et al., 1985; Chan and Griffiths, 1988). The use of organic amendments such as
traditional thermophilic composts has been recognized generally as an effective means for
improving soil aggregation, structure and fertility, increasing microbial diversity and
populations, improving the moisture-holding capacity of soils, increasing the soil cation
exchange capacity (CEC) and increasing crop yields (Zink and Allen, 1998). Vermicompost
contains most nutrients in plant-available forms such as nitrates, phosphates, and exchangeable
calcium and soluble potassium (Orozco et al., 1996). There is accumulating scientific evidence
that vermicomposts can influence the growth and productivity of plants significantly (Edward,
1998). Various greenhouse and field studies have examined the effects of a variety of
vermicomposts on a wide range of crops including cereals and legumes (Chan and Griffiths,
1988), vegetable (Atiyeh et al., 2000b), ornamental and flowering plants (Atiyeh et al., 2000b),
and field crops (Arancon et al., 2004). The soil quality includes soil reaction (pH), mineral
[3]
Introduction
nutrient elements, water content, composition of soil atmosphere and biotic factors. Mature
compost when added to soil directly affects almost all of these factors (Marinari et al., 2000).
Sustainability of agricultural systems has become an important issue throughout the world. It is
well known that intensive cultivation has led to a rapid decline in organic matter and nutrient
levels besides affecting the physical properties of soil. The use of organic amendments has long
been recognized as an effective means of improving the structure and fertility of the soil,
increasing the microbial diversity, activity and population, improving the moisture holding
capacity of soils and crop yield (Frederickson et al., 1997). Vermicompost has large particulate
surface area that provides many micro sites for the microbial activity and strong retention of
nutrients. Vermicompost also contains large amounts of humid substances and some of the
effects of these substances on plant growth have been shown to be very similar to those of soil-
applied plant growth regulators or hormones (Muscolo et al., 1999). As a result, most nutrients
are easily available such as; nitrates, phosphates, and exchangeable calcium and soluble
potassium (Edwards, 1998), which are responsible for increased plant growth and crop yield.
Vermicompost has been shown to increase the dry weight (Edwards, 1995) and nitrogen uptake
efficiency of plants (Tomati et al., 1995). However a growing awareness of some of the adverse
economic and environmental impacts of agrochemicals in crop production has stimulated greater
interest in the utilization of organic amendments such as composts or vermicomposts for crop
production (Follet et al., 1981). The use of organic amendments, such as traditional thermophilic
composts, has been used to increase crop productivity and yields (Bwamiki et al., 1998; Johnston
et al., 1995; Maynard, 1993), and their use is usually associated with improved soil structure and
enhanced soil fertility (Follet et al., 1981), increased soil microbial populations (Barakan et al.,
1995) and activity (Zink and Allen, 1998), and an improved moisture-holding capacity of the
soil. Vermicomposts are finely divided into peat-like materials with high porosity, aeration,
drainage, water-holding capacity and microbial activity, which make them excellent soil
amendments or conditioners (Atiyeh et al., 1999, 2000d; Edwards, 1998).
In this context eco-friendly biofertilizers became handy to minimize chemical fertilizer

use. They are Azospirillum, Blue Green Algae, Azolla and Phosphobacteria are popular among
farmers (Karthikeyan, 2003). For popularizing the use of bio-fertilizers, 7000 experimental
demonstrations were conducted and about 6000 farmers were trained in the use of BGA and
[4]
Introduction
Rhizobium. The increase in paddy yields due to BGA range from 13-16.67% whereas in pulses
and oil seeds application of Rhizobium resulted in yield increase in the range of 5-13%
(Karthikeyan, 2003).
India is blessed with favourable agro-ecological conditions for growth of different crops.
India is considered to be a paradise of oil seed crops having 19% of the total world’s oil seed
area and 10% of the world’s oil seed production, with seven edible oil seed viz., groundnut,
rapeseed - mustard, soybean, sunflower, sesame, Niger and two non-edible sources viz., castor
and linseed. India is the world’s largest producer of castor and sesame and the second largest
producer of groundnut and rape-seed mustard.
The oil seeds production increased from 11 million metric tons (in 1986-87) to 24.96
million metric tons (in 1996-1997) accounting 12% of the world oilseeds output, in a span of a
decade. The area under oil seeds production increased from 10.73 m ha-1 (1950-1951) to 931 kg
ha-1 (in 1996-97). This upliftment is due to the oil seeds production technology, expansion in
cultivated area, the price support policy and institutional support, particularly the setting up of
Technology Mission on oil seeds (TMO) in 1986.
The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) recommended an intake rate of 20 g of

oil per day per adult (7.3 kg per year) and the requirements of edible oils at this rate in 2020 AD
would be almost 11.5 MT which could be extracted from 34.6 MT of oil seeds. Therefore, there
is an urgent need to accelerate research as well as development strategies to bridge the gap of 9.0
MT in the coming years.
Oil seeds groups being next to food crops hold sizable share of the countries gross
cropped area (13.0 %). Research efforts in the recent past have been successful in enhancing
productivity of major oil-seeds crops. In Asian countries, rape-seed and mustard cultivation led
to the development of local land races of B. juncea, B. campestries and these now form the basic
raw material for the breeders. In these crops, higher number of siliquae/plant and more number
of seeds/siliquae have been observed to be important yield attributes associated with its higher
yield expression and could form suitable criteria to breed for high yield. (Ramanujam and Rai,
1963; Anand et al., 1975; Shabana et al., 1990; Nagalakshmi, 1992).
The term ‘mustard’ is believed to be derived from the use of seeds as condiment, the
sweet ‘must’ of old wine was mixed with crushed seeds to form a paste. Mustard belongs to
[5]
Introduction
family Cruciferae, genus Brassica. Mustard is an annual herb ranging from 0.45 to 1.75 m.
Indian mustard is more or less surface feeder with long and tapering roots and branch angle
ranges from 30° to 40°. The genus Brassica has yellow flowers, six stamens and globose seeds
borne within two celled pods (Indian Council of Agricultural Research, 1997). Mustard is a
‘Rabi crop’ requires relatively cool temperature, moist growing and dry harvest period. They
grow well in medium loam, heavy loam or sandy loam. Some common species of Brassica
(mustard) like Brassica campestris, B. juncea, B. napus, B. nigra etc. are cultivated traditionally
in rice-mustard- wheat crop rotation. There is a great diversity of morphotypes in Brassica
campestris. The earliest reference of sarson in India are found in Sanskrit writings from 2000 to
1500 BC. Applequist and Ohlson (1972) recently dated the beginning of cultivation of turnip
rape in 13th century. Of the turnip oil seed rapes, two ecologically different forms are recognized,
winter turnip rape and summer turnip rape. Till date 14th century seeds from turnip were used for
processing oil. This was a widespread practice in Europe but gradually specialized oil forms
developed. Very little s known about European summer turnip rape except that it was used as an
emergency oil seed crop in case of failure of winter crop. Asian summer turnip rape forms are
extensively grown in China, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Indian types include three
morphologically distinct forms are identified and are grown extensively throughout the Indian
subcontinent. Three different types of Asian turnip rape are believed to have originated from a
wild B. campestris which had its distribution from Western Europe to Eastern China. Eastern
Afghanistan together with the adjoining north Western India is one of the independent centres of
origin of brown sarson. Based on the geographic distribution, wild rape (syn. campestris)
originated in Europe from the common ancestors, B. rapa and B. oleracea (Song et al., 1990).
On the other hand Rice has been cultivated for such countless ages that its origin must
always be a matter of debate. The cultivation of rice certainly dates to the earliest age of man and
long before the year of which we have historical evidences. It is the seed of monocot plants
Oryza sativa (L) (Asian rice) or Oryza glaberrima (African rice).
Rice is the staple food for over half of the world’s population (FAO, 2004). It occupies
11 % of world agricultural land. Over 90 % of the world’s rice is produced and consumed in the
Asian region by 6 countries namely China, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Japan.
With the increasing demand of huge population, rice will continue to be primary sources of food
of this area. Worldwide, India is first in rice producing area and second in production after
[6]
Introduction
China. It contributes 21.5 % of global rice production. The global productivity of rice (paddy) in
the year 2002 was about 3916 kg ha-1, where as in case of India it was about 2915 kg ha-1.
In India rice occupies 23.3 % of cropped area and contributes of about 43 % of total food
grain production and continues to play a vital role in national food security. A remarkable
achievement in food grain production after green revolution, transformed India from net
importing country in the mid 1960s to exporter country in rice by the early 1990s. In India rice
grown in almost all states, but leading rice by the growing states are West Bengal, Andhra
Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Oddisa, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Assam etc. Among the top 10 leading rice
producing states in India, West Bengal rank first in area of coverage as well as in total
production. West Bengal is called as the richest reservoir of rice bio-diversity and rice bowl of
the country.
Rice can be cultivated by different methods based on the type of region. But in India, the
traditional methods are still in use for harvesting rice. The fields are initially ploughed and then
fertilizer is applied which typically consists of cow dung and then the field is smoothed. The
seeds are transplanted by hand and then through proper irrigation, the seeds are cultivated. Rice
grows on a variety of soils like silts, loams and gravels. It can also tolerate alkaline as well
as acid soils. However, clayey loam is well suited to the raising of this crop. Actually the clayey
soil can be easily converted into mud in which rice seedlings can be transplanted easily. Proper
care has to be taken as this crop thrives if the soil remains wet and is under water during its
growing years. Rice fields should be level and should have low mud walls for retaining water. In
the plain areas, excess rainwater is allowed to inundate the rice fields and flow slowly. Rice
raised in the well watered lowland areas is known as lowland or wet rice. In the hilly areas,
slopes are cut into terraces for the cultivation of rice. Thus, the rice grown in the hilly areas is
known as dry or upland rice. Interestingly, per hectare yield of upland rice is comparatively less
than that of the wet rice.
West Bengal accounts for 14-16 % of India’s rice production. In 2011-12, the state
government had procured 3.04 MT of rice. Till May this year, it had procured 2.71 MT. The soil
of West Bengal can broadly be classified into 8 categories viz. i) Brown forest soil ii) Terai soil
iii) Tista – Mahananda alluvial soil iv) Vindhyan alluvial soil, v) Gangetic alluvial soil, vi)
Deltaic and coastal soil vii) Red soil and viii) Lateritic soil. Among all the Gangetic alluvial soil
zones are very fertile and with irrigated land and are higher than other zones. Due to sound
[7]
Introduction
irrigation facility, rice in these areas grows successfully in 3 different seasons namely, Aus
(autumn rice), Aman (winter rice) and Boro (summer rice). Although, major share in total rice
production come from Aman and Boro paddy. In the year 2007-2008, these 3 categories of rice
shared 4.92, 68.47 and 26.43 % respectively of the cultivable area and 3.84, 62.69 and 34.47 %
of the total rice production respectively (Adhikari et al., 2011).
These 3 seasons are named according to the harvest of the crop. Autumn or pre kharif
rice is known as Aus in West Bengal which grows from April to July in the northern region and
May to September in southern region of the state and accounts for only 5 % of total rice area.
The winter or monsoon rice is known as Aman which grows from June to December. It accounts
for 69% of the total rice area and is mainly grown under rain fed condition with local and
traditional varieties.
The recent concern of policy makers, environmentalists and farmers is to maintain

sustainability of resources available without over exploiting it or exhausting it. ‘Sustainable
agriculture’ is a method of farming to produce adequate food for the present generation without
depleting the fertility and productivity of the soil. In this context continued use of inorganic
chemical fertilizers was found to deplete the organic content of soil. The total consumption of
fertilizer in India has increased from 0.29 million tons in 1960-61 to 1.63 million tons in 1998-99
while in Tamil Nadu it has increased from 3.33 lakh tons to 9.42 lakh tons over the same period
(Sharma, 1978). The domestic production is insufficient to meet the demand and the nutrient
requirement has to be supplemented for green manure, farmyard manure and fertilizers. At this
juncture, it is essential for us to evolve and adopt a strategy of integrated nutrient supply by using
a judicious combination of chemical fertilizer, organic manures and biofertilizers (Swaminathon,
2006).
In this context eco-friendly, environmentally safe biofertilizers become handy to

minimize fertilizer use with the increasing cost of fertilizer and due to environmental concern, a
strategy has to develop to integrate organic material like vermicompost. In this present
investigation screened, uncontaminated and biodegradable municipal solid wastes were
used for the production of vermicompost with cow-dung and Eichhornia used as vermi-
bed. This vermicompost were used in crop production in combination with bio-fertilizer and
chemical fertilizer. Bio-fertilizer plays a vital component of such integrated farming.
[8]
Introduction
With this background knowledge, the present work “Municipal waste management
through vermicomposting and its impact on crop growth, physiology, yield, soil health, soil
biodiversity and carbon conservation under paddy and mustard cultivation in old alluvial
soil zone of Burdwan district, West Bengal” has been taken to:
i) To develop an agrotechnology from the municipal waste of Burdwan town.

ii) Application of this vermicompost on two crops in relation to its growth, physiology
and yield.
iii) To study the impact of vermicompost on soil health, soil biodiversity and carbon
conservation in old alluvial soil of Burdwan, West Bengal.
iv) To inoculate the technology among the farmers.
[9]
Review of Literature
T he most striking feature of all India food production for the last 50 years is the rapid increase
associated with green revolution from the sixties. Advances in agricultural sciences and plant
genetics played a crucial role in the green revolution. The ‘green revolution’ package of
adaptation of high yielding varieties with adequate application of chemical fertilizer and
pesticides was developed in the laboratories and field stations by agricultural scientists because
of assured high yield. The substantial increase in yield in the first two decades of the green
revolution was the reflection of the success of the transfer of this know how in the ‘lab to land’
programme. This phenomenol growth made it possible for the century to move from a food
deficit state to one which is by and large self sufficient. Despite the rapid growth in the
population during the period, the per capita availability of the food grain has remained stable.
However, in the last decade, the growth rate in the food grain production on the global as well as
national level has declined in association with the fatigue of green revolution.
It has been predicted that global cereal demand (that is for rice, wheat and maize) will
increase at a rate of 1.3% per year between 2000 and 2025, necessitating increases in the mean
grain yield of these cereals; the need will be especially great in the developing countries (Lal,
2007). Hence, sustainable increases in crop yields are needed to ensure food security in India, the
most populous country in the world, as well as in other nations. Consequently, the judicious and
scientific management of soil and water resources is essential to meet the demands for cereals.
Soil management practices have profound impacts on soil fertility, which is closely linked to
land productivity. As soil processes are often slow, it is only through long term experiments that
they can be detected and understood, allowing us to manipulate them to enhance crop
production. However, stagnation or a decline in yields has also been reported in rice-based
cropping systems in Asia and has been attributed to the quality and quantity of soil organic
carbon (SOC) and its impact on nutrient supply (Bhandari et al., 2002; Ladha et al., 2003).
In Asian countries centuries of rapeseed and mustard cultivation led to the development
of local land races of B. juncea, B. campestris and these are now form the basic raw material for
the breeders. In these crops, high number of siliquae / plant and more number of seeds/ siliquae
have been observed to be important yield attributes associated with higher yield expression and
could form suitable criteria to breed for higher yield. (Ramanujam and Rai, 1963; Nagalakshmi,
1992).
[10]
The concept of using earthworms to stabilize organic wastes (vermicomposting) is not

new, and is in use on varying scales in a large number of both developed and underdeveloped
countries. The potentiality of utilizing earthworms for breaking down of organic residuals has
been explored only in recent years. The principles behind vermicomposting are relatively simple
and related to those involved in traditional composting. Certain species of earthworms can
consume organic residuals very rapidly and fragment them into much finer particles by passing
them through a grinding gizzard, an organ that all earthworms possess. The retention time of the
waste in the earthworm is short. Worms can digest several times their own weight each day, and
large quantities are passed through an average population of earthworms.
Long-term application of inorganic fertilizers like high doses of ammonium sulfate and sulfur
coated urea has led to soil acidification (Ma et al., 1990), decrease in soil aggregate stability
(Estevez et al., 1996) decrease in soil respiration (Sharma 2003), pollution of underground water
and decrease in earthworm populations (Edwards and Bohlen 1996). Vermicompost has been
shown to have high levels of total and available nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium (NPK) and
micro nutrients, microbial and enzyme activities and growth regulators (Parthasarathi and
Ranganathan 1999; Chaoui et al., 2003) and continuous and adequate use with proper
management can increase soil organic carbon, soil water retention and transmission and
improvement in other physical properties of soil like bulk density, penetration resistance and
aggregation (Zebarth et al., 1999) as well as beneficial effect on the growth of a variety of plants
(Atiyeh et al., 2002).
1.1 Effect of chemical fertilizer treatments on different varieties of crop species
Kumar et al., (2000) reported the increase in yield amog the different mustard varieties by
blending of Urea with dicyandiamide. Variety ‘Pusa-Bold’ reported higher yield in comparison
to ‘Bio 902’.
Kumar et al., (2001) reported the effect of various nitrogen levels on five genotypes of
Indian mustard [Brassica juncea(L) Czernj and Cosson] and one genotype of Swede rape.The
results revealed that the genotype ‘RH 8814’ was significantly superior than the other Indian
mustard genotypes as well as Swedish rape genotype.
[11]
Miller et al., (2003) reported that among the five Brassica genotypes in eleven
environments under three levels of nitrogen were responsive to the nitrogen fertility regime and
subsequently high total available nitrogen was generally required to maximize seed yield.
Murthy et al., (2006) conducted field experiments for three consecutive years to
understand the effect of different levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium nutrition on
growth characteristics of gherkin. It was found that supply of nitrogen significantly enhanced the
growth and the enhancement was proportional to increase in the quantity of application.
Application of nitrogen @ 225 kg/ha level showed the maximum values of the growth
characteristics except the girth of inter node. Phosphorus at both the levels (125 and 175
kg.ha-1) tested showed no significant effect on any of the vegetative characters. However, in
combination with nitrogen (NPK @ 225: 125: 0), it significantly increased the girth of internode
and fresh weight of plants. Potassium @ 125 kg.ha-1 showed no significant improvement, but in
combination with nitrogen and phosphorus enhanced the growth. The overall improvement of
gherkin in terms of vegetative characteristics was found to be the best in the combination of NPK
@ 175: 125: 125 kg.ha-1.
1.2 Effect of chemical fertilizer treatments on yield attributes
A growth of the pod depends upon the supply of assimilates from leaves and stem. Pod
wall provides assimilates required for seed growth through photosynthesis (Inanga et al., 1979).
Chaudhary and Bose (1986) examined that the application of 75:37.5 kg N and P2O5 ha-1
and two irrigations given at 4 weeks after germination and pod formation noted higher yield over
control and fertilizers @ of 25:12.5:12.5 kg.ha-1 with same irrigation. Ilin (1986) judged that
various combinations of NPK fertilization increased seed yield of spring rape by 0.17 to 0.5 q ha-
1
as compared to control (0.08 t ha-1). The highest grain yield was achieved with Fertilizers
180:40:60 ha-1. NPK markedly increased nutrient uptake. Higher NPK dose decreased oil content
compared with control and lower fertilizer doses. The total oil production was the highest with
application of fertilizers @ of 180:40:60 kg ha-1. The treatment produced considerable biomass.
Valero and Haq (1986) from Bangladesh stated that yield response and economic return in
wheat-mustard followed the trend of application of NPK>NP>N>control. Patil et al., (1989)
registered that the application of 90 kg N and 45 kg P2O5 ha-1 to mustard gave 3 years of average
yield of 1.64 t as compared with 0.75 t without nitrogen and phosphorus.
[12]
Dongale et al., (1990) from Maharashtra found that mustard showed graded and
significant response to increasing levels of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers. The crop should
be fertilized with 90 kg N + 45 kg P2O5 ha-1 for the highest grain yield (16.38 q ha-1) and highest
additional returns (8993 Rs ha-1). Fertilizers considerably enhanced the consumptive use
efficiency and also water use efficiency. They observed that growth parameters like plant height,
number of leaves per plant, number of grains per pod, branches per plant, dry matter
accumulation per plant and flowering was also significantly influenced due to the application of
80 kg N + 45 kg P2O5 ha-1 under lateritic soils of Konkan region. Narayanswamy (1990) noted
that application of N120:P60:K15 gave seed yield of 8.11 q ha-1. Singh and Singh (1993) from
Pantnagar reported that fertilizers 90:90:60 kg ha-1 for Indian mustard would be the optimum
fertilizer dose to get higher productivity. Arthamwar et al., (1996) opined that each higher level
of nitrogen significantly improved all the yield attributes. There was linear increase in seed yield
and oil yield ha-1 due to nitrogen levels from 0 to 100 kg N ha-1. They also showed that every
increase in the level of phosphorus significantly improved all the yield attributes, seed yield, oil
content and yield of Indian mustard.
Tomar et al., (1996) marked that plant height, number of branches, dry matter
accumulation, number of siliquae, thousand seed weight, seed and oil yields increased
significantly with the increasing levels of fertilization up to 120:60:60 kg ha-1. Patel and Shelke
(1998) from Maharashtra perceived that application of phosphorus up to 80 kg P2O5 ha-1 showed
linear increase in growth, yield contributing characters and seed, as well as stover yield of Indian
mustard.
Kumar and Bhogal (2000) detected that there was linear increase in seed yield of mustard
due to increase in the nitrogen levels up to 120 kg N ha-1, which was due to increased branching,
siliquae per plant and seeds per siliquae. The protein content also increased significantly with
increasing levels of nitrogen per hectare. The oil content increased with increasing levels of
nitrogen up to 40 kg N ha-1 and thereafter it decreased. Singh and Singh (2000) observed that
mustard yield increased significantly with each successive increment of 40 kg N up to 120 kg N
ha-1. The highest level of nitrogen (160 kg N ha-1) produced highest seed yield ha-1, while the
difference between 120 and 160 kg N ha-1 was not significant.
[13]
An experiment was conducted by Sah et al., (2006) during rabi season of 1997-98 at
Varanasi on Indian mustard [Brassica juncea (L.) Czern and Coss] to study its growth and
nutrient uptake pattern at various levels of N, P and S which revealed plant height and primary
branches plant-1 increased significantly up to 80 kg N ha-1 and secondary branches, dry matter
plant-1 and leaf chlorophyll content up to 120 kg N ha-1. Application of phosphorus up to 60 kg
P2O5 ha-1 significantly enhanced dry matter plant-1 whereas plant height, branches plant-1 and leaf
chlorophyll content increased significantly only up to 40 kg P2O5 ha-1. All growth attributes
increased significantly only up to 40 kg S ha-1. The results showed that the uptake of NPK and S
by both seed and stover increased significantly with successive increase in nitrogen levels up to
120 kg N ha-1 and sulphur levels up to 60 kg S ha-1, whereas increased with increasing levels of
P.
2.1 Azotobacter as Biofertilizer and its effect on growth, physiology, yield of different crop
species
Beijerink (1901) first isolated the free living aerobic bacterium and named it as
Azotobacter chroococcum. The artificial inoculation of the seeds of crop plants with Azotobacter
chroococcum was first introduced by Gerlack and Vogel (1902).
Sundara Rao et al., (1963) reported that plant bacterized with Azotobacter were able to
take up more phosphorous from soil than control plants. Increased in yield is due to multiple
action of Azotobacter viz., by producing metabolites that stimulated plant development after
germination or through more uptake of phosphate by solubilizing tricalcium phosphate (Arora,
1971).
Mehrotra and Lehri (1971) conducted experiments in transplanted crop of tomato and
brinjal with Azotobacter inoculation in seedling and noted 2-29% and 1-42% yield increase in
tomato and brinjal respectively.
Singh (1977) have reported that application of Azotobacter as seed inoculant helped in
inhibiting and preventing the occurrence of viral, fungal and bacterial diseases of some
agricultural crops.
Kannaiyan et al., (1980) conducted a field experiment with ADT-31 rice variety. Foliar
spray of Azotobacter chroococcum was applied on 15th, 30th and 45th day after transplanting of
[14]
rice crop. They observed that the foliar spray of Azotobacter culture significantly increased the
grain and straw yield of rice crop.
Bhargava et al., (1981) conducted field trials in response to Azotobacter under varying
levels of nitrogen in bajra under unirrigated condition. The field experiment was conducted at
Agricultural research station, Durgapura, Rajasthan, India in kharif season of 1976. Seed
inoculation with Azotobacter significantly increased the grain and straw yield.
Rao and Sharma (1981) reported improvement in some morpho-physiological characters

of carrot, radish and chilli due to inoculation with Azotobacter and pointed out the ability of
Azotobacter to produce growth promoting factor.
Meshram and Shende (1982) observed that the total nitrogen uptake by maize after
inoculation along with higher yields.
Ram et al., (1985) studied the influence of Azotobacter as biofertilizer in presence of

fertilizer nitrogen on the yield of wheat. The results obtained leads to the conclusion that
Azotobacter can improve the yield of wheat especially in presence of fertilizer nitrogen.
Negi et al., (1987) recorded more population of Azotobacter in organic amended soil.
Singh et al., (1993) studied the effect of inoculation with Azotobacter on wheat seed and
found increased grain yield.
Kader et al., (2000) evaluated the effects of Azotobacter application either individually or
in combination with the use of organic and chemical fertilizers on the growth and yield of
transplant aman rice and nutrient status of post harvest soil. Increased growth in terms of leaf
area index and tiller number per plant was recorded from Azotobacter application both
individually and in combination with the use of organic and chemical fertilizers. They found
significant influences of Azotobacter with all level of organic and chemical fertilizers on the
grain and straw yields. But they observed overall best performance regarding growth and yield
from Azotobacter application along with the use of 3/4 of recommended dose of chemical
fertilizers.
A field experiment was conducted during 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 by Panwar et al.,
(2000) to study the effect of fertility level (0, 40, 80 and 120 kg ha-1) with or without biofertilizer
treatment (uninoculated control, inoculation with Azotobacter, Azospirillum and both) on seed
[15]
yield and seed quality of radish. Inoculation of seed or root or soil with Azotobacter culture helps
in better establishment of the bacterium in plant rhizosphere where it resumes its activity and
may act as an antagonist against plant pathogen.
Kizilkya (2008) reported application of indigenous strain A. chroococcum RK49 had the
highest effects on yield and increased the production of grain yield by 84% in field experiment
and by in 95% pot experiment compared to control treatment without A. chroococcum
inoculation.
Roy et al., (2011) assessed plant growth promotion of A. chroococcum on aman rice in
Tripura in rainy autumn season (Kharif-Aman, July-Nov) in 2008. The test variety cv NDR-359
was inoculated with A. chroococcum. Split plot experimental design with 20 treatments and 3
replications was carried out. Two factors viz. 4 levels of urea N (20, 40, 60 and 80 kg ha-1) and 3
forms of inoculation (seed inoculation, root dipping and basal application) were applied. Both
individually and in integration with different levels of urea N, the A. chroococcum substantially
increased growth parameters, biomass, leaf area index (LAI) and yield parameters.
2.2 Phosphobacter as Biofertilizer and its effect on growth, physiology, yield of different
crop species
In undivided USSR a commercial biofertilizer under the name ‘Phosphobacterin’ was

first prepared by incorporating Bacillus megaterium var phosphaticum and widely used in
undivided USSR and other East European countries with yield increase in the order of 5-10%
over corressponding controls. Several field trials have also been conducted by the Indian
Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi by using Phosphobacteria on wheat, berseem,
maize, arhar, rice and potato etc. The result of Phosphobacteria inoculation experiments
conducted in several location in India in different agro-climatic conditions. Sundara Rao, (1963)
stated that ten out of thirty seven field experiments showed significant increase in yield over un-
inoculated controls. In case of Paddy 12-31% yield increase over control has been noticed.
Rodriguez and Fraga (1999) pointed out that the use of phosphate solubilizing bacteria as
inoculants simultaneously increased P uptake by the plant and crop yield. According to them
strains from the genera Pseudomonas, Bacillus and Rhizobium are among the most powerful
phosphate solubilizers. The principal mechanism for mineral phosphate solubilization is the
production of organic acids, and acid phosphatases play a major role in the mineralization of
[16]
organic phosphorous in soil. Therefore, genetic manipulation of phosphate-solubilizing bacteria

to improve their ability to improve plant growth may include cloning genes involved in both
mineral and organic phosphate solubilization, followed by their expression in selected
rhizobacterial strains.
Sharma in 2003 reported that low grade rock phosphate such as Mussoorie rock
phosphate can be advantageously utilized in rice-wheat cropping system when applied with PSB
inoculation and incorporation of rice and wheat residues.
Perumal et al., (2004) conducted two field experiments during February-April 2000 and
January-March 2001, in Nagar, Tamil Nadu, India and found that the growth and yield
parameters (plant height, leaf area index and grain yield) were improved by 2% DAP as foliar
spray + seed and soil application of phosphobacteria.
Kumpawat (2006) conducted a field experiment during 1999-2000 to 2001-02 revealed

highest cluster bean seed yield (8.76 q ha-1) was obtained with 20 kg P2O5 ha-1+PSB seed
inoculation. Grain yield of succeeding wheat crop increased by 2.16, 1.81 and 0.42 q.ha-1 with
the residue of 20 kg P2O5 ha-1+PSB seed inoculation over the residue of control, 20 kg P2O5 ha-1
and 40 kg P2O5 ha-1, respectively. Application of 20 kg P2O5 ha-1 with PSB seed inoculation to
the preceding crop of cluster bean increased wheat-grain equivalent yield by 12.5% over control.
The highest benefit: cost ratio (2.64) and net returns (23076 Rs ha-1) were also obtained with the
application of 20 kg P2O5 ha-1 + PSB seed inoculation. Wheat responded to nitrogen application
significantly up to 120 kg N ha-1.
Pot experiment of Zhu et al., (2007) showed that the plant height, stem diameter, and dry
mass of corn seedling were significantly higher in PSB treatments than in control. Applying of
PSB agent with manure as a carrier could significantly increase the seedling's dry mass as
compared with applying of PSB agent alone.
Ravindran et al., (2007) conducted one field experiment on application of halophytic

compost, farmyard manure along with phosphate solubulizing bacteria on growth parameters in
Arachis hypogaea. Results revealed that halophytic compost along with farmyard manure (FYM)
and phosphate solubilising bacteria (PSB) resulted in production of highest biomass such as plant
height, number of compound leaves, total number of root nodules, fresh and dry weight of root
nodules and fresh and dry weight of plant.
[17]
Mehrvarz et al., (2008) studied the effect of seed inoculation by phosphate solubilizing
microorganisms and different levels of phosphorus chemical fertilizer on yield and yield
components of barley (Karoon × Kavir cultivar) in Experimental Farm of College of Agronomy
and Animal Sciences, University of Tehran during 2006-2007 growing seasons. The
experimental treatments were arranged in split plot factorial based on a complete randomized
block design with four replications. Three phosphorus fertilizer levels of 0 (control), 30 and 60
kg.ha-1 were allocated to the main plots and three levels of Phosphate solubilizing bacteria of 0
(control), Pseudomonas putida accessions number 9 and 41 along with two levels of Mycorrhiza
with and without Mycorrhiza (control) were assigned to the subplots in a factorial combination.
Sole application of bacteria (accession 9) produced the maximum biological yield, while the
application of the same bacteria along with Mycorrhiza achieved the maximum one in thousand
seed weight. Seed inoculation with sole bacteria positively affected the number of the seeds per
kernel. Application of Mycorrhiza along with bacteria significantly increased leaf chlorophyll
content. According to the results of this experiment, application of bacteria (accession 41) in
absence of any chemical phosphorus fertilizer had an appropriate performance and could
increase biomass production to an acceptable level, so it could be considered as a suitable
substitute for chemical phosphorous fertilizer in organic agricultural systems.
Shaharoona et al., (2008) reported that the efficacy of PSB in solubilizing P can be
decreased with increasing rates of chemical fertilizers applied to soil. The strains can be utilized
in combination with suitable doses of P fertilizers for better with lower usage of fertilizers.
Khan et al., (2009) studied on the recent developments on microbial P solubilizing and
mentioned that PSB play role in phosphorus nutrition by enhancing its availability to plants
through release from inorganic and organic soil P pools by solubilization and mineralization.
Principal mechanism in soil for mineral phosphate solubilization is lowering of soil PH by
microbial production of organic acids and mineralization of organic P by acid phosphatases. Use
of P solubilizing bacteria as inoculants increases P uptake.
3.1 Effect of chemical fertilizer, biofertilizer on crop growth, yield and productivity
Singh (1999) observed that increased level of nitrogen, sulphur and calcium leads
towards significant increase in branches, pods, pod weight, seed weight/ plant and 1000 grain
weight and ultimately yield.
[18]
Sinha et al., (2000) conducted a field experiment where mustard (Brassica campestris L.)
cv. B9 was grown in refined sand at three levels of boron (B), deficient (0.003ppm), normal
(0.330ppm) and excess (3.300ppm), each at three levels of zinc (Zn), low (0.0006ppm) adequate
(0.065ppm) and high (6.500ppm). The boron defficiency effects were accentuated by low zinc
viz., the decreased biomass.
In response to a field work conducted by Bhari et al., (2000) response of Indian mustard
[Brassica juncea (L.) Czernj and Cosson] to varying levels of nitrogen and phosphorous
revealded that upto 120 kg ha-1 N application and 45 kg P2O5 ha-1 application there were
progressive increase in the different yield attributes.
Manna and Singh (2001) conducted one field experiment at two sites in Gujrat, India,
having 38 and 10 year old orchard cropping systems to evaluate changes in organic carbon
accumulation and chemical and microbiological properties of the soils. Under a system of
different intercropped fruit trees, the cultivation of coconut (Cocos nucifera) intercropped with
guava (Psidium guajava) enhanced the soil microbial activity approximately 2 fold after 38 years
over 10 years of the same intercropped system. Soil organic carbon increased from 3.4-7.8 and
2.4-6.2 g.kg-1 after 38 and 10 years respectively.
A study was conducted by Jacobson and Petterson (2001) on growth responses to

reapplication of fertilizer on 12 Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and 6 Norway spruce (Picea abies)
stands on mineral soils (Podzols) in Sweden, used in long term nitrogen (N) fertilizer application
experiments (1989-92) were refertilized with N (Urea, and/or ammonium nitrate alone or with
lime, either alone or with various combinations and doses of phosphorous (P: 20-60
kg.ha-1), potassium (K: 40-150 kg ha-1), and magnesium (mg: 10-60 kg ha-1). Many of the
experimental plots had previously been subjected to heavy N fertilizer application regimes over a
period of 20-30 years. On an average, for all the experiments, the latest N addition resulted in a
significant growth increase, corressponding to 57% of the mean annual volume increment and
comparable with the response to the initial fertilizer application. Differences in growth response
between fertilizer application with N alone or in combination with P-K-Mg were in most cases
insignificant for both tree species. Overall the joint addition of P-K-Mg resulted in a non-
significant additional growth increase of 0.2 m3 ha-1 year-1, corresponding to 6% of the nitrogen
fertilizer application effect. Repeated additions of N had no effect on the P, K and Mg
[19]
concentration. It was concluded that the repeated N fertilizer applications did not cause any
serious nutrient defficiencies.
Singh and Ngachan (2001) optimised the use of chemical fertilizer with crop residue and
bio-fertilizer as a supplementary source of nutrients. They recorded increased grain yield of rice
by 18.43% over control with the application N-fixing and phosphate solubilising bio-fertilizer.
Ballasubramanian (2002) conducted an experiment in 1998 to evaluate the effect of

pressmud, biofertilizers and graded doses of inorganic nitrogen on the yield of oil seed. The
experiments was conducted with the biofertilizers i.e., Azoapirillum brasilience and Acetobacter
diazotrophicus at Annamalai University Experimental farm. The results indicated that
application of 70% recommended dose of N (206.3 kg N ha-1) with Aceto bacter recorded as
much oil seed yield as compared to 100% recommended dose of N with no biofertilizers. It was
concluded that 25% of inorganic nitrogen (68.7kg N ha-1) could be saved by the use of A.
diazotrophicus.
El Hawary et al., (2002) conducted field experiment in 2000-2001 to study the effect of
two biofertilizers and three different levels of liquid fertilizer (32%N) as nitrate and ammonia on
yield, chemical composition, yield components and NPK uptake on wheat cultivars. They
concluded from the experiment that the inoculation with any biofertilizer leads to considerable
improvement in wheat grain and straw yield as compared with their respective control.
Sarwar et al., (2008) documented the efficiency of various organic residues for enhancing
Rice-Wheat production under normal soil conditions and observed the use of organic materials
alone was beneficial for test weight of paddy, but the magnitude was decreased when chemical
fertilizers was added with organic materials in all the treatments. They also reported significant
influence of organic materials alone and in combination with chemical fertilizers on plant height
and tiller number.
3.2 Effect of vermicompost on growth, physiology and yield of different crop species
Crop yield is a complex heritable character depends on its morphological and

physiological characteristics influenced by the environment. In the modern agricultural
technology, some chemicals are used for changing the morphological and physiological
[20]
characters of the plant, which helps in growth and development of the plant and indirectly
increase the yield and yield contributing factors (Nickell, 1983).
Sharma et al., (2008) studied the effect of organics and fertilizers on scented rice (Oryza
sativa L.) in rice-wheat sequence. Among organics, vermicompost produced significantly higher
values of growth, yield, grain quality and nutrient uptake than FYM and control. FYM was found
significantly superior to control in all respect. The combination of best levels of both factors
(vermicompost + 100% rec. fertilizer) performed best in most of the rice character.
Rasool et al., (2008) recorded highest growth and yield of tomato with vermicompost at
15 t ha-1. Vermicompost with rate of 15 t ha-1 increased EC of fruit juice and percentage of fruit
dry matter up to 30 and 24%, respectively. The content of K, P, Fe and Zn in the plant tissue
increased 55, 73, 32 and 36% compared to untreated plots respectively.
Uma and Malathi (2009) studied the efficacy of vermicompost produced from organic
waste over chemical fertilizer by applying it to Amaranthus sp. Growth, survival rate was better
with vermicompost as compared to chemical fertilizer. Biochemical analysis revealed greater
values in plant tissues with use of vermicompost, over chemical fertilizer and control. Similarly
% of nitrogen content; phosphorous content and potassium content of plant tissue was higher.
They also found better soil health in vermicompost treated plot as compared to chemical
fertilizer.
3.2.1 Vermicompost Technology
Atiyeh et al., (2000) stated that the biochemical changes in fresh cow manure caused by
the earthworm Eisenia Andrei (Bouché) were measured over a period of four months, under
controlled laboratory conditions. Earthworms were introduced into each of four plastic
containers (0.4 × 0.27 × 0.15 m) containing fresh cow manure (2500 g), and four containers
containing manure but without earthworms served as controls. Earthworms reduced the pH and
decreased the moisture content in the manure. The C:N ratio of the manure with or without
earthworms decreased progressively from 36 to 21. The ash and total nitrogen contents increased
greatly for a few weeks after the introduction of earthworms, reflecting a rapid breakdown of
carbon compounds and mineralization of nitrogen by the earthworms. CO2 evolution decreased
rapidly (44 %) one week after the introduction of earthworms, and continued at a lower rate
throughout the 17 weeks (51 % reduction as compared to 22 % without earthworms), indicating
[21]
increasing stability of the organic matter. Earthworms reduced microbial biomass early in the
process, but enhanced nitrogen mineralization and increased the rates of conversion of
ammonium-nitrogen into nitrate. The major general effect of earthworms on the organic wastes
was to accelerate the maturation of the organic wastes as demonstrated by enhanced growth of
lettuce and tomato seedlings.
Atiyeh et al., 2000 stated that Vermicomposts, which are produced by the fragmentation
of organic wastes by earthworms, have a fine particulate structure and contain nutrients in forms
that are readily available for plant uptake. In greenhouse trials, the growth of marigold and
tomato seedlings, in a commercial horticultural potting medium (Metro-Mix 360), was enhanced
significantly upon substitution of Metro-Mix 360 with 10 % or 20 % vermicomposted pig solids
or vermicomposted food wastes, when all required nutrients were supplied.
Arancon et.al., 2005 stated that commercially processed vermicomposts, produced from
food wastes, paper wastes and cattle manure, were applied to 8.25 m2 field plots, at rates of 10 or
20 t ha-1 in 1999 and 5 or 10 t ha-1 in 2000, to evaluate their effects on the growth and yields of
peppers (Capsicum annuum) var. King Arthur. The vermicomposts were incorporated into the
upper 10 cm of soil and supplemented, based on chemical analyses, with amounts of inorganic
NPK fertilizers calculated to equalize initially with the rates of 95-95 NK kg ha-1 applied to the
inorganic fertilizer control plots. Phosphorus was determined to be adequate in soils at the
experiment site so was not added. All treatments were replicated four times in a randomized
complete block design. The vermicompost applications increased the growth and yields of
peppers significantly; including increased leaf areas, plant shoot biomass, marketable fruit
weights and decreased yields of non-marketable fruit. Application of vermicomposts to soils
increased their microbial biomass and dehydrogenase activity. Humic materials and other plant
growth-influencing substances, such as plant growth hormones, produced by microorganisms
during vermicomposting, and produced after increased microbial biomass and activity in soils
may have been responsible for the increased pepper growth and yields, independent of nutrient
availability.
Nair et al., 2006 have shown that the combination of the thermocomposting and
vermicomposting to improve the treatment efficiency and assess the optimum period required in
each method to produce good quality compost. The results showed that pre thermocomposting
[22]
improved vermicomposting of kitchen waste. A 9-day thermocomposting prior to

vermicomposting helped in mass reduction, moisture management and pathogen reduction.
Sinha et al., 2010 stated that Vermiculture technology is emerging as an

“environmentally sustainable”, “economically viable” and “socially acceptable” technology all
over the world. 1) Vermi-composting Technology (to manage most organic wastes); 2) Vermi-
filtration Technology (to treat municipal & several industrial wastewater); 3) Vermiremediation
Technology (to treat & clean up contaminated lands); 4) Vermi-agro-production Technology (to
produce chemical-free organic foods by worms & vermicompost); 5) Vermi-industrial
Production Technology (to produce valuable industrial raw materials from worms). They have
successfully experimented with the first four technologies for management of “municipal solid
wastes”, treatment of “municipal & industrial wastewater”, remediation of “PAHs contaminated
soils” and production of “wheat & corn crops” by use of vermicompost at Griffith University,
Australia, with excellent results. Wastes are degraded by over 75% faster than conventional
systems and compost produced are disinfected, detoxified, and richer in nutrients & beneficial
soil microbes.
Tejda and Gonzalez (2009) found a positive effect on the soil biological properties and
rice quality and yield parameters with respect to the no vermicompost amended soil.
3.2.2 Effect of vermicompost on plant growth and development
Grappelli et al., (1987) and Tomati and Galli (1995) tested vermicompost produced from
organic wastes by the action of earthworms, as media for growing ornamental plants and
mushrooms. They concluded that the growth increases that occurred in all of their experiments
were much too large to be explained purely on the basis of the nutrient contents of the
vermicomposts. Moreover the growth changes observed included stimulation of rooting,
dwarfing, time of flowering and lengthening of internodes.
Edwards and Burrows (1988) observed the efficacy of plant growth media produced by
the processing of organic wastes by the earthworm E. fetida was much greater than in
commercially-available plant growth media on the growth of 28 ornamentals and vegetables and
was too much to be explained solely through influence of earthworm activity on plant nutrient
quality and availability. They found that the growth of ornamentals was influenced significantly
[23]
even when the earthworm-processed organic wastes known as vermicompost were diluted 20:1
with other suitable materials and the nutrient content balanced to that of comparable media.
Atiyeh et al., 2000 stated that the shoot dry weights of raspberry plants grown in a
mineral soil mixed with vermicomposted from pig wastes weighed more than those grown in
unfertilized control soil and were as great as those in soil receiving a complete fertilizer
treatment. By comparison, raspberry shoot growth in soils amended with yard, leaf or bark
composts, was poorer than that in the unfertilized control soil. Amending the soil with 4%
chicken manure compost killed most of the raspberry plants. However, plant mortality was
reduced and growth restored when the chicken manure compost was mixed with
vermicomposted pig solids but not with bark or yard composts. Plant growth in soil containing a
mixture of chicken manure compost with 20% vermicompost from pig wastes was similar to that
of plants grown in the unfertilized control. Their results showed that vermicomposts have the
potential for improving plant growth when added to greenhouse container media or soil.
However, there seem to be distinct differences between specific vermicompost and compost in
terms of their nutrient contents, the nature of their microbial communities and their effects on
plant growth.
Norman et al., (2005) stated that at lower substitution rates, vermicomposts can increase
growth, flowering and yields of vegetable and ornamental crops. Similarly, vermicompost
applied at very low rates e.g. 2.5t ha-1 or 5 t ha-1 can significantly increase growth and yield of
highly valuable vegetable and fruit crops in the field. According to them the effects of
vermicompost on plants are not solely attributed to the quality of mineral nutrition is provided
but also to its other growth regulating components such as plant growth hormones and humic
acids. Furthermore, the application of vermicompost in the field enhances the quality of soil by
increasing microbial activity and microbial biomass which are key components in nutrient
cycling, production of plant growth regulators and protecting plants soil-borne disease and
arthropod pest attacks.
Biological fertilizer with 50% of chemical fertilizers (nitrogen, phosphorous and

potassium) led to an increase in plant growth, plant height, branch number, fresh and dry weight
of sunflower in comparison to applying chemical fertilizers alone (Ojaghloo, 2007).
[24]
Marjan et al., (2013) investigated the effect of vermicompost and bio-fertilizers on yield
and yield components of common millet and they concluded that the effect of mycorrhiza and
Azotobacter in presence of vermicompost was greater in terms of grain yield.
3.2.3 Effect of vermicompost on crop yield
Pandey and Kumar (1989) analysed the published results of Indian workers and
concluded that Azotobacter application was beneficial to several crops and it increased the yield
of wheat, rice, maize, pearl millet and sorghum by 0 to 72% over the control without amendment
and by 8 to 43% over control when farm yard manure and N, P and K fertilizers were added.
Arancon et al., (2002) found significantly higher growth and yield of field tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum) and pepper (Capsicum annuum grossum) with vermicomposts as
compared to chemical fertilizer alone.
Integrated nutrient management constituting vermicompost and farmyard manure in

combination with different doses fertilizer were studied by Barik et al., (2006). Their results
showed that reduction of 50% recommended dose of fertilizer along with vermicompost @ 10
t/ha significantly influenced the growth and yield attributes of kharif rice which recorded highest
grain and straw yield. Highest gross return was recorded from 50% recommended dose of
fertilizer with vermicompost at 10 t ha-1 which was significantly higher than the farmyard
manure treated plots.
Ansari and Sukhraj (2010) stated in their investigation that combination of organic
fertilizers, vermicompost and vermiwash compared with control and chemical fertilizers had
great influence on plant growth parameters. The average yield of Okro (A. esculentus) during
trial showed a significantly greater response in comparison with the control by 64.27%. The
fruits were found to have a greater percentage of fats and protein content when compared with
those grown with chemical fertilizers by 23.86 and 19.86% respectively. The combination
treatment vermiwash and vermicompost was also found to have a significant influence on the
biochemical characteristics of the soil with marked improvement in soil micronutrients. The
combination treatment was found to be better suggesting qualitative improvement in the physical
and chemical properties of the soil which is substantiated by composite, index {Rank 1 for
vermicompost and vermiwash combination with composite index of 9}. This biological method
[25]
of crop cultivation is sustainable and improves soil health rather than conventional methods
based on the earlier observations.
Peng et al., (2013) observed that organic fertilizer in the form of N-fixing Azotobacter
enhanced yield with positive effects on measured plant height, weight and leaf area index. Given
the significant enhancement in growth and yield of corn taking place mainly with N-fixing
Azotobacter fertilizers under organic condition. They commented that the mechanism for this
beneficial effect could be due to the more balanced nutrition and improved absorption of
nitrogen and other mineral nutrients by the corn.
4. Effect of combined dose of chemical fertilizer, biofertilizer, vermicompost and compost

(farmyard manure) on growth and yield of different crop species.
De Ruiter et al., (1993) pointed out that in agricultural practices the use of inorganic
fertilizer is being reduced in favour of the use of organic manure, the availability of nitrogen (N)
in soil for plant growth depends increasingly on N mineralization. In simulation models, N
mineralization is frequently described in relation to the decomposition of organic matter, making
a distinction in the quality of the chemical components available as substrate for soil microbes. A
different way to model N mineralization is to drive N mineralization from the trophic
interactions among the groups of organisms constituting the soil food web. In the present study a
food web model was applied to a set of food webs from different sites and from different arable
farming systems. The results showed that the model could stimulate N mineralization rates close
to the rates obtained from in situ movement from nitrogen budget analyses, or from a
decomposition based model. The outcome of the model suggested that the contribution of the
various groups of organisms to N mineralization varied strongly among the different sites and
farming systems.
A field experiment conducted by Patel (1998) revealed that the growth, yield attributes
and seed as well as stover yield of Indian mustard [Brassica juncea (L) Czernj and Cosson]
increased significantly with the application of farmyard manure (5 t ha-1) over the control.
A field experiment conducted by Patel (1998) revealed that the growth, yield attributes
and seed as well as strover yields [Brassica juncea (L.) Czernj and Cosson] increased
significantly with the application of farmyard manure. Sharma (1999) reported about a field
experiment conducted during 1992-93 at Cuttack, India to study the effect of combined use of
[26]
farmyard manure (0 and 10 FYM ha-1) and urea fertilizer (0, 20 and 40 kg N ha-1) and directly
sown Gayatri rice (Oryza sativa L.) grown in upto 52-58 cm water depth. Ranwa et al., (1999)
reported on the effect of integrated nutrient management with vermicompost on productivity of
food grain.
Tangcham et al., (2000) concluded that the yield of Sorghum variety both Chainat and
Nakhonsawa gave maximum yield (2.587 t ha-1 and 2.519 t ha-1) respectively with the treatment
of nitrogen + compost and inoculation with biofertilizer in comparison to the individual
treatment of nitrogen (2.356 t.ha-1), compost (1.537 t.ha-1) and inoculation with biofertilizer
(1.906 t.ha-1).
Kumar et al., (2000) conducted a field experiment with different organic and inorganic
sources of fertilizer in the mustard rice cropping sequence in acid lateritic sandy clay loam soil in
Kharagpur. There was an increase in mustard yield by about 165% with higher levels (N-60, P-
36, K-24) of fertilizer application.
A field experiment was carried out by Murali and Setty (2000) during kharif 1997 to
study the response of scented rice to different levels of NPK fertilizers (100 :50 :50,
125 :62.5 :62.5, and 150 : 75 :75 kg ha-1), vermicompost (0 and 5 t ha-1), and growth regulator
(triacontanol, at 0, 250 and 500 ml ha-1) at ARS, Siruguppa, Karnataka, India. The results
revealed that application of highest dose of chemical fertilizer recorded significantly higher
growth and yield attributes. They also noticed that application of vermicompost at 5 t ha-1
resulted in significantly higher yield (4889 kg ha-1) compared to no vermicompost application.
Tangcham et al., (2000) studied that in rice variety the increase in yield was 1.714 t ha-1
with the nitrogen + compost and inoculation with biofertilizer in comparison to individual
application of nitrogen (1.627 t ha-1), composed (1.358 t ha-1) and inoculation with biofertilizer
(1.399 t ha-1) the picture is little bit different in case of Chiengmai variety and it has been
observed that maximum yield (3.019 t ha-1) was obtained with nitrogen + composed treatment in
comparison to individual application of nitrogen (2.960 t ha-1) and composed (2.737 t ha-1) but
overall growth was higher in this particular variety (Chiengmai) in all treatment.
Field experiment was conducted by Choudhury and Kabi in 2003 to study the effect of
interaction among biofertilizer, FYM and fertilizer nitrogen on rice in new alluvial zone.
[27]
Interaction depicted significantly higher grain and straw yield when nitrogen had interaction with
the highest level of organic matter enrichment along with biofertilizer.
A field trial was conducted by Maji and Mondal (2004) to study the effect of long-term
use of fertilizer and manure on sustainability. Long term addition of fertilizer along with manure
help to bring soil pH towards neutral, increase in soil organic carbon content, macro (N, P, K)
and micro (Fe, Cu, Mn, Zn) nutrients availability and improve physical properties leading to
sustainance of fertility.
Surindra Suthar (2009) studied the impact of vermicomposted and composted farmyard
manure (FYM) along with some combination of NPK fertilizers, on field crop of garlic (Allium
stivum L.). The maximum range of some plant parameters i.e. root length, shoot length, leaf
length, fruit weight, number of cloves in garlic fruit and number of leaves per plant was in the T4
treatment (vermicompost at 15 t ha-1 + 50% NPK) plot. The average fruit weight was
approximately 26.4% greater in T4 than recommended NPK treatment plot (T1). They found
comparatively better result with vermicomposted FYM than composted manure. The plant
growth results indicated the presence of some growth-promoting substances in worm-processed
material (vermicompost). The vermicomposted FYM also contained a considerable amount of
some essential plant micronutrients e.g. Cu (0.973 mg kg-1), Fe (8.68 mg kg-1), Mn (13.64 mg
kg-1) and Zn (16.91 mg kg-1) that might be responsible for better plant growth and productivity.
They suggested that vermicomposted manures may be a potential source of plant nutrients for
sustainable crop production.
Siavosh et al. (2011) recorded maximum rice yield with combined dose of organic and
inorganic fertilizer. They noted that this is due to the increase of 1000 seed weight, panicle
number, number of fertile tiller, flag leaf length, number of spikelet, panicle length and decrease
number of hollow spikelet per panicle. They found organic fertilizer have a significant influence
on growth and productivity in rice. Organic fertilizer can be a better supplement of inorganic
fertilizer to produce better growth and yield. They also pointed out that from the economic point
of view farmers can use the combination of organic fertilizer and reduced rate of inorganic
fertilizer to boost up the yield of rice as well as to maintain and improve soil health.
Hossaen et al., 2011 recorded maximum number of effective tiller, grain per panicle, test
weight, longest panicle size, highest grain and straw yield of boro paddy with 70% NPKS
[28]
fertilizer along with poultry manure @ 2.4 t ha-1 which is at par with 70% NPKS +
vermicompost @ 3 t ha-1.
5.1 Effect of organic manures and fertilizers on physical properties of soil
Havangi and Mann (1970) based on long term studies stated that the bulk density was greatly
decreased due to continuous application of FYM (1.43 Mg m-3) compared to control (1.45 Mg m-
3
) and 1.46 Mg m-3 in fertilizer treatment. Biswas et al., (1971) registered that the application of
potassic and phosphatic fertilizers either alone or in combination showed improvement in soil
aggregation (35.5 to 49%) as compared to control.
Gattani et al., (1976) noted that the continuous use of chemical fertilizer alone or in combination
resulted in increase of bulk density whereas FYM alone and FYM + NPK through chemical
fertilizers helped in keeping the bulk density value same as that of control. The water holding
capacity (WHC) of soil was improved due to continuous use of FYM.
Shanmugam and Ravi (1980) and Kapur et al., (1981) showed that incorporation of crop residue
and FYM decreased the bulk density, where as hydraulic conductivity, porosity and aggregates
stability were increased thereby improving physical properties of soil.
Bhatia and Shukla (1982) perceived that application of FYM @ 120 kg N ha-1 decreased the bulk
density to 1.14 Mg m-3. They further noted that there was increase in the bulk density due to
chemical fertilizer alone, which was mainly due to deterioration of structure by nitrogenous
fertilizers.
Gupta et al., (1986) scrutinized that the application of city compost caused significant
decrease in bulk density from 1.37 to 1.32 g m-3 and increased the WHC from 25.2 to 27.8%
thereby improving the physical status of soil.
Garg et al. (1991) judged that the bulk density of soil decreased from 0.06 to 0.12 Mg m-3
under different organic amendments as compared to control and also there was improvement in
WHC of soil. The effectiveness of different amendments followed the order i.e. FYM>Fly
ash>wheat straw>control. Lomte et al., (1993) stated that increase in organic carbon content was
12.6 and 4% for the 100% NPK and 50% NPK, respectively over 25% NPK application.
A field experiment was conducted by Sharma and Sharma (1993) at the Research Farm of
Himachal Pradesh Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Palampur on rice-wheat cropping system. The results
[29]
revealed that there was a reduction in bulk density from the initial value of 1.32 to 1.28 Mg m-3
in the manured plots, while unmanured plots did not show any changes. Meelu et al., (1994)
concluded that green manure, FYM and crop residue helped to improve the soil physical
conditions through microbial cells, decomposition products and penetration of fine roots.
Prasad (1994) at Pusa conducted a trial on rice-wheat cropping system with different
combinations of chemical fertilizers and organic manures. The lowest bulk density was observed
due to NPK + FYM + BGA followed by NPK + FYM and the highest being in the control plot.
These results suggested that organic manures and biofertilizers play important role in improving
the physical environment of soil.
Selviranganathan and Augistine (1997) and Bellakki et al., (1998) marked increase in
WHC of lateritic soil by application of different organic manures. The increase was in the range
of 19.3 to 27.4% over NPK alone. They also perceived that application of FYM recorded the
highest WHC i.e. 46.4% followed by mushroom spent, rice straw compost and composted coir
pith. Ramteke et al., (1998) detected that the application of FYM @ 10 t ha-1 significantly
reduced the bulk density of soil as compared to the initial value after harvest of rice. There was
remarkable increase in WHC by application of FYM followed by vermicompost @ 10 t ha-1 and
gliricidia @ 10 t ha-1 along with 50% of recommended dose of chemical fertilizers.
Yadav (1998) viewed that 100% NPK applied through chemical fertilizers increased the
bulk density significantly over the organic manure consisting of 50% substitution of NPK
through vermicompost, gliricidia and FYM after harvest of rice, while later three treatments did
not show any increase in bulk density over the initial value. Talathi (2001) recorded that
application of 50% recommended NPK through fertilizer + 50% N through FYM significantly
reduced the bulk density of the soil as compared to initial status after harvest of rice, whereas it
increased with 100% recommended NPK through fertilizer after harvest of maize and groundnut.
Application of 50% recommended NPK through fertilizer + 50% N through FYM showed
remarkable increase in WHC of soil after harvest of rice, while 75% recommended NPK through
fertilizer noted higher WHC after maize and groundnut.
Parthasarathi et al., (2008) observed in a field experiment conducted during 2002-2003

that vermicompost increased the pore space, reduced particle and bulk density, increased water
holding capacity, cation exchange capacity, reduced PH and electrical conductivity, increased
[30]
organic carbon content, available nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium and microbial population
and activity in all the soil types, particularly clay loam. The yield and quality (protein and sugar
content in seed) of black gram was enhanced in soils, particularly clay loam soil. They also
reported that the application of inorganic fertilizer has resulted in reduced porosity, compaction
of soil, reduced carbon and reduced microbial activity.
5.2 Effect of organic manures and fertilizers on chemical properties of soil
Gattani et al., (1976) examined low pH in the plots treated with 100% NPK applied
through chemical fertilizer. Organic carbon content of the soil declined, when only potash was
applied either alone or along with nitrogen, while application of NPK had either increased or
maintained the initial status. They also judged significant increase in organic carbon content of
soil from 0.19 to 0.24% due to FYM @ 40 t ha-1 in soil of Jaipur, Rajasthan. Formali and Prasad
(1979), Singh et al., (1980) and Prasad and Singh (1980) stated that the application of FYM
increased organic carbon, available NPK as compared to control. This may be due to
decomposition and mineralization of organic matter.
Prasad et al., (1983) and Prasad et al., (1986) concluded that available nitrogen
significantly improved in all the treatments, where nitrogenous fertilizers were applied in
combination with phosphatic and potassic fertilizers at higher levels as compared to control. 50%
NPK showed depletion in nitrogen availability as compared to initial status (295 kg N ha-1) while
100% and 150% NPK showed enrichment in available nitrogen (333 to 368 kg N ha-1) as
compared to initial value.
Acharya et al., (1988) reported that FYM + 100% of the recommended NPK improved
the organic carbon and available NPK status of soil. Incorporation of FYM in combination with
100% NPK maintained the available phosphorus at higher level compared to 100% NPK alone
perhaps owing to the mineralization of organic phosphorus contributing to its accumulation in
soil.
Sharma et al., (1988) at Palampur perceived that application of Lantana as a green

manure, rice husk and saw dust increased the organic carbon and also helped to increase the
availability of NPK in soil as compared to control. Lantana as a green manure, rice husk and saw
dust markedly increased the organic carbon by 29, 19 and 18%, respectively over control.
[31]
Rana and Bhandari (1993) monitored that the balance fertilization not only proved
beneficial for getting fairly high crop yield, but also maintaining the soil health in terms of
organic carbon and available NPK. There was however a considerable build up of available
phosphorus. Sharma and Sharma (1993) at Palampur worked on fertilizer management in rice-
wheat cropping system and studied the buildup of organic carbon in manured plots. There was
increase in available NPK with increasing levels of fertilizer or organic manure, but the
application of 50% NPK to both the crops registered a little depletion of all the three nutrients.
Bhardwaj and Omanwar (1994) judged that increasing doses of NPK (50 to 150%)
increased the available NPK content of the soil. The nitrogen availability increased to a greater
extent, when nitrogen was applied along with phosphorus and potassium fertilizers with higher
doses.
Jana and Ghosh (1996) concluded that application of 100% recommended dose of NPK
through inorganic source increased the uptake of NPK by the plants in rice-rice sequence over
50% and 75% NPK. This higher uptake of NPK was due to greater release of nutrients and their
ready availability in the soil.
Basumantry and Talukdar (1997) at Assam Agricultural University studied the effect of
integrated nutrient management in rice-rice sequence and observed that substitution of 25 or 50%
N through FYM resulted in significantly high accumulation of available nitrogen and phosphorus
than chemical fertilizers alone.
Kumar and Singh (1997) noted that application of FYM @ 10 t ha-1 to both rice and
wheat crop increased available nitrogen and phosphorus status of soil over no application of
FYM and initial value. The available potassium status found to be declined with FYM
application as compared to initial values.
Ramteke et al., (1998) opined that available NPK status increased by the application of
vermicompost @ 10 t.ha-1 + 50% recommended NPK followed by gliricidia and FYM combined
with fertilizer.
Talathi et al. (2002) recorded that application of 50% recommended NPK through
fertilizer + 50% N through FYM registered the highest organic carbon content after rice, while
[32]
there was slight decline in organic carbon content due to 100% recommended NPK after harvest
of maize.
The increase in grain yield components can be due to the fact that available more water enhanced
nutrient availability which improved nitrogen and other macro and micro elements absorption as
well as enhancing the production and translocation of the dry matter content from source to sink
Ebaid et al., (2007).
A study was conducted by Kavitha et al., (2007) in the Department of Environmental

Sciences, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India, to transform the normal
compost into bioactive compost, which has multiple benefits to the crop system. The key players
in this transformation process were Azotobacter sp., Pseudomonas sp., Phosphobacteria sp. and
the waste materials like poultry litter and spent wash. This enrichment process increases both the
quality and nutrient content of the municipal solid waste compost significantly. A study was
carried out to evaluate the effect of application of different levels of enriched municipal solid
waste compost on the availability of the macronutrient content to the rice field soil. The effect of
enriched compost on soil available nutrients was significant. The soil ammonium nitrogen and
soil nitrate nitrogen content was found to be high in the plots where the enriched compost was
applied along with inorganic fertilizer with the values of 38.87 mg kg-1 and 32.87 mg kg-1,
respectively. In addition, the availability decreased towards crop growth. The soil available P and
K were also increased with enriched compost application to about 22.46 kg.ha-1 and 647 kg.ha-1
compared with control values of 19.44 kg ha-1 and 518 kg ha-1, respectively. Both phosphorus
and potassium content decreased towards advancement of crop growth.
The effect of vermicompost and microbial inoculants on soil health and wheat (Triticum
aestivum L.) yield were studied by Shukla et al., (2013) during the 2006-2008. They found
improvement of organic carbon status from 0.25% to 0.68% in 3 years in treatment amended
with vermicompost alone. Inoculation of bio-fertilizer further improved the organic carbon
content during the period of three years and recorded maximum carbon content in treatment
inoculated with Azotobacter + PSB along with vermicompost. Similarly, available nitrogen
status was also increased in the soil due to inoculation of Azotobacter and Azospirillum.
Maximum grain yield of 3.11 q/ha was obtained in plots amended with vermicompost and co-
inoculated with Azotobacter and Azospirillum.
[33]
Gupta and Tripathi (2012) carried out an experiment during 2009-10 and 2010-11 to
study the efficacy of Azotobacter, vermicompost alone and in combination on vegetative growth,
flowering, yield and quality of strawberry cv. Chandler. They clearly found that the combined
application of Azotobacter at 7 kg ha-1 + vermicompost at 30 t ha-1 significantly increased the
height of plant (19.45 and 4.32, respectively) per plant, whereas maximum number of flowers
(67.48 and 64.51, respectively) and fruits set (39.21 and 36.19, respectively) per plant with
increased duration of harvesting (71.04 and 69.02 days, respectively) and minimum number of
days taken to produce first flower (56.15 and 54.15 days, respectively) and fruit set (6.44 and
5.94 days, respectively) with significantly more yield (324.38 and 320.39 g/plant, respectively)
were also observed in Azotobacter at 6 kg/ha + vermicompost at 30 t/ha applied plants.
[34]
Land Preparation of Mustard field
Lay out preparation of Mustard field
During lay out preparation and transplantation of Paddy (2012)
During lay out preparation and transplantation of Paddy (2013)
Application of chemical fertilizer on Mustard field
Application of chemical fertilizer on Paddy field
Mustard crop on 30 DAS showing three replications
Irrigation of crop
Paddy crop on 45 DAS
Mustard crop at flowering stage
Crop at mature stage
Collection of sample (siliquae)
Crop at mature stage
Comparative study of Panicle length
Harvesting of crop through quadrate method
Cutting of crop
Binding of Mustard crop
Binding of Paddy crop
Threshing of crop
Data collection through LICOR-6400XT
Bacterial colony formation of treatment T4
During Laboratory work
Materials and Methods
F ield experiments during winter seasons of 2011-12, 2012-13 and rainy seasons of 2012 and
2013 were conducted in the old alluvial soil zone of West Bengal, India, for agronomical
physiological and biochemical studies in Mustard (Brassica campestries) and Paddy (Oryza
sativa) in old alluvial soil zone of Burdwan district, West Bengal, India with the following
objectives:
i) To develop an agrotechnology from the municipal waste of Burdwan town.

ii) Application of this vermicompost on two crops in relation to its growth, physiology and
yield.
iii) To study the impact of vermicompost on soil health, soil biodiversity and carbon
conservation in old alluvial soil of Burdwan, West Bengal.
iv) To inoculate the technology among the farmers.
The materials used and methods followed during the course of studies are described below:
3.1 Experimental site
Experiments were conducted in the Crop Research and Seed Multiplication Farm of the
University of Burdwan, West Bengal, India. The farm is situated at 87 50 51 E latitude
and 23 15 12 N longitude with an average altitude of 30 meter above the mean sea level.
3.2 Climatic Condition
University farm is situated under monsoon-humid climatic zone having a little extreme weather
condition. The average rainfall varies from 1500-1600 mm of which maximum occurs in July-
August. But owing to porous nature, medium texture and high organic matter content in soil, the
soil moisture received through rainfall or irrigation water is not preserved in the sub-soil for a
longer period for successful crop production, particularly during rainless days. The details of the
climatic condition of the crop growing period (from 2011-13) have been presented in the Table
3.1.
Weekly mean maximum temperature in the crop season varied from 22.9 C to 31.87 C in
2011-12 and 19.3 C to 31.22 C in 2012-13 for Mustard crop and for Rice cultivation
Maximum temperature varied from
[35]
Fig 3.1 Study Area of Mustard
[36]
Fig 3.2 Study Area of Paddy
[37]
The mean minimum temperature varied from 8.69 C to 17.9 C in 2011-12 and in 2012-13 it
was from 7.2 C to 17.5 C. In case of Rice cultivation it was
Total rainfall received during the crop season in 2011, 2012 and 2013 were 0 mm to 3 mm in
case of Mustard and
Table 3.1 Meteorological details (week wise) during the first experimental year (2011-12) of
Mustard cultivation.
Month Standard Mean RH Wind speed Mean Rainfall
(Weeks) Temperature (ºC) (%) (km/hr) Sunshine (mm)
(hr)
Max Min 90.14
1st 29.84 17.63 87.86 1.8 7.83 0
Nov 2nd 30.23 17.9 89.71 2.7 6.79 0
2011 3rd 28.31 16.66 84.44 2 6.37 0
4th 29.09 14.95 85.57 2.3 7.86 0
1st 28.21 15.44 87.71 1.4 6.54 0
nd
Dec 2 26.6 15.36 89.43 2.5 7.41 0
2011 3rd 22.9 8.69 85.1 3.7 4.83 0
4th 24.3 10.3 88 3.8 7.1 0
1st 24.3 15.93 86.57 3.1 5.79 0
Jan 2nd 21.83 12.83 87.71 5.1 4.36 0
2012 3rd 20.8 12.13 83 3.5 5.59 0
4th 21.3 10.6 82.43 4.0 5.77 0
st
1 26.29 11.83 82.43 3.1 0.91 0
Feb 2nd 26.47 13.17 82.71 5.1 4.23 0
2012 3rd 28 15.99 85.29 7.2 5.37 0
4th 31.87 16.21 78.87 5 7.12 0
[38]
Table 3.2 Meteorological details (week wise) during the second experimental year (2012-13)
of Mustard cultivation
Month Standard Mean Temperature RH Wind speed Mean Rainfall
(Weeks) (ºC) (%) (km/hr) Sunshine (mm)
(hr)
Max Min
1st 29.0 17.5 90.1 1.7 6.22 0
Nov 2nd 30.03 17.2 88.2 1.3 6.25 0
2012 3rd 29.22 15.6 89.21 2.1 5.51 0
4th 29.05 14.25 85.21 2 4.23 0
st
1 28.25 15.5 84.44 2.3 6.18 0
Dec 2nd 26.5 15.3 85.75 2.5 6.25 0
2012 3rd 22.1 9.9 82.1 1.8 7.21 0
4th 19.3 7.2 78.2 3.2 5.49 0
1st 20.51 7.5 75.3 3.7 5.15 0
Jan 2nd 21.3 9.4 79.2 3.4 5.59 0
2013 3rd 22.8 10.2 82.5 5.1 4.32 3
th
4 24.7 12.5 83.0 4.3 5.12 0
1st 25.32 14.7 85.21 5.2 6.6 0
Feb 2nd 26.1 15.9 81.21 4.4 5.37 0
2013 3rd 27.47 16.4 82.7 8.1 5.23 0
4th 31.22 17.5 77.2 7.2 7.15 0
[39]
Table 3.3 Meteorological details (week wise) during the first experimental year (2012) of
Paddy cultivation.
(hr)
Max Min
1st 31.4 25.1 90 10.8 10.32 87.6
July
2nd 32.0 26.8 89 12.7 9.67 32.8
2012
3rd 33.1 27.1 93 12 9.9 122.4
4th 33.0 25.8 91 12.3 10.1 0
1st 35.0 26.5 94 11.4 9.5 17.0

August
2nd 30.6 25.4 97 12.5 9.1 113.2
2012
3rd 32.1 25.3 92 13.7 9.6 60.4
4th 33.4 24.8 94 10.8 9.1 31.8
1st 31.2 25.5 92 13.1 8.87 7.4

Sep
2nd 32.1 25.7 94 12.1 8.62 12.6
2012
3rd 33.4 24.8 95 9.5 8.51 188.8
4th 31.0 25.6 93 9.0 8.05 36.0
1st 32.8 23.8 89 8.1 8.14 0

Oct
2nd 33.1 24.9 90 9.1 8.16 2.3
2012
3rd 31.4 23.1 88 9.2 8.54 0
4th 30.9 22.0 86 9 8.21 76.5
[40]
Table 3.4 Meteorological details (week wise) during the second experimental year (2013) of
Paddy cultivation.
(hr)
Max Min
1st 33.8 25.5 95 11.7 10.98 91.2
July
2nd 32.3 25.0 90 11.3 10.57 49.4
2013
3rd 34.5 26.2 89 12.1 10.72 8.5
4th 34.0 24.0 94 12 9.8 77.0
1st 35.0 24.8 94 12.3 9.4 175.4

August
2nd 34.8 27.3 92 12.5 9.0 126.5
2013
3rd 33.2 24.6 88 11.8 9.3 49.4
4th 32.2 24.5 83 13.2 9.2 49.8
1st 33.4 24.5 95 13.7 9.6 77.8

Sep
2nd 34.5 25.9 94 12.4 9.73 84.6
2013
3rd 35.6 26.8 93 12.1 8.77 2.0
4th 33.5 25.7 90 9.3 8.78 84.6
1st 32.4 24.1 95 9.2 8.28 58.6

Oct
2nd 32.6 22.2 90 9.4 8.21 0
2013
3rd 31.9 19.8 88 8.1 8.36 0
4th 30.6 17.1 87 9.2 8.8 0
[41]
Table 3.5 List of parameters studied of soil with their methods used and detail of statistical
analysis
Particulars Methods used
i) Soil bulk density, particle density, Black (1965)
porosity, specific gravity, moisture
content, soil temperature and water
holding capacity
ii) Soil pH Electronics PH meter in 1:10 soil water
suspension as described by Jackson (1972)
iii) Soil conductivity Electronics conductivity meter in 1:2 soil water
suspension as described by Jackson (1972)
iv) Organic carbon (%) Volumetric method (Walkley, 1947) as
described by Muhr et al. (1965)
v) Available nitrogen (kg.ha-1) Kjeldahl method as described by Subbiah and
Asija (1956)
vi) Available phosphorus (kg.ha-1) Olsen method as described by Olsen et al.
(1954)
vii) Available potassium (kg.ha-1) Flame photometer method as described by
Black (1965)
viii) Available micronutrients (mg kg-1) Diethylene triamine penta acetic acid (DTPA)
(Lindsay & Norvell 1978), followed by atomic
absorption spectrophotometry (PerkinElmer
200AA, Perkin Elmer Inc., Waltham, MA,
USA).
ix) Statistical analysis using MINITAB Panse & Sukhatme 1967; Gomez & Gomez
software (http://www.minitab.com). 1984.
The statistical significance of
differences between the different
treatments was compared using
DMRT (Duncan’s Multiple Range
Test) at 5% confidence interval
[42]
Table 3.6 Physical, chemical and biological characteristics of Initial soil for mustard
cultivation (0-15cm depth)
Mechanical fractions
% sand (0.02-0.2 mm) 18.46 ± 2.05
% silt (0.002-0.02 mm) 34.58 ± 3.18
% clay (<0.002) 46.96 ± 3.08
PH (1:2 soil:water) 6.45 ± 0.02
CEC (cmol kg-1) 17.45 ± 0.98
Organic carbon (%) 0.68 ± 0.09
Total N (%) 0.10 ± 0.007
Available K2O (kg ha-1) 120.76 ± 2.22
-1
Available P2O5 (kg ha ) 92.55 ± 1.10
DTPA extractable Zn (ppm) 1.33 ± 0.04
DTPA extractable Fe (ppm) 18.75 ± 1.08
DTPA extractable Cu (ppm) 3.20 ± 0.09
DTPA extractable Mn (ppm) 7.33 ± 0.03
Total Bacteria (CFU g-1) 54 X 106
Table 3.7 Chemical and biological characteristics of Vermicompost used for mustard
cultivation
N% P% K% Zn% Fe% Mn% Cu% Total

Bacteria
1.71 1.18 0.98±0.02 0.0088±0.001 0.094±0.01 0.024±0.008 0.012±0.004 4.8X108
±0.08 ±0.07
[43]
Table 3.8 Physical, chemical and biological characteristics of Initial soil for paddy
cultivation (0-15cm depth)
Characteristics Value
Mechanical fractions:
Sand (0.02–0.2 mm) (%) 21.53 ± 2.01
Silt (0.002–0.02 mm) (%) 37.34 ±3.11
Clay (<0.002 mm) (%) 25.51 ± 3.02
pH (1:5, soil:water) 6.1 ± 0.01
CEC (cmol kg−1) 10.39 ± 0.92
Organic C (%) 0.91 ± 0.08
Available N (mg kg-1) 12.21 ± 0.039
−1
Available K (mg kg ) 10.33 ± 1.89
Available P (mg kg−1) 11.83 ± 1.11
DTPA extractable Zn (mg kg−1) 1.22 ± 0.02
DTPA extractable Fe (mg kg−1) 12.29 ± 0.81
DTPA extractable Cu (mg kg−1) 3.26 ± 0.07
DTPA extractable Mn (mg kg−1) 6.53 ± 0.01
Total bacteria (cfu g−1 of soil) 22 x 106
Table 3.9 Chemical and biological characteristics of Vermicompost used for paddy
cultivation
N P K Zn Fe Mn Cu Total
% Bacteria
(cfu g-1)
1.75 ± 1.22 ± 0.92 ± 0.0089 ± 0.092 ± 0.022 ± 0.013 ± 4.2 x 108
0.03 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.006 0.007
[44]
3.3 Experimental details
3.3.1 Title of the experiment
“Municipal waste management through vermicomposting and its impact on crop growth,
physiology, yield, soil health, soil biodiversity and carbon conservation under paddy and mustard
cultivation in old alluvial soil zone of Burdwan district, West Bengal”.
3.3.2 Experimental design
Field experiments were conducted in randomized block design replicated thrice. The layout of all
the field experiments for the year 2011, 2012 and 2013 have been presented in Fig. 1 along with
other necessary information in Table 3.10 and Table 3.11. Treatment combination along with
biofertilizer, vermicompost and cow dung application time and method of field experiments for
2011, 2012 and 2013 have been presented in Table 3.4.
Table 3.10 Experimental design for Mustard
Year→ 2011-12 2012-13

Design Randomized block design Randomized block design
No. of replication 3 3
No. of treatment combination 21 21
Size of each sub plot 2.5m X 4m 2.5m X 4m
Season of cultivation Winter Winter
Crop Mustard (Brassica campestris Mustard (Brassica campestris
cv. B9) cv. B9)
Variety B9 B9
Spacing:
Row to Row: 30cm 30cm
Plant to plant: 15cm 15cm
[45]
Table 3.11 Experimental design for Paddy
Year→ 2012 2013

Design Randomized block design Randomized block design
No. of replication 3 3
No. of treatment combination 21 21
Size of each sub plot 3m X 4m 3m X 4m
Season of cultivation Rainy Rainy
Crop Paddy Paddy
Variety (Oryza sativa cv.MTU7029) (Oryza sativa cv.MTU7029)
Spacing:
Row to Row: 20cm 20cm
Hill to Hill: 15cm 15cm
[46]
Figure 3.3 Layout of the experiment 2011, 2012 and 2013 for both the crops
The plots were demarcated by ridges on all sides and to facilitate irrigation evenly
irrigation channels were made.
3.3.3 Details of experimental treatments
Critical growth stages of mustard and paddy.
[47]
Table 3.12 Calendar of operations for mustard
Operation Date Details of operations

2011-12 2012-13
1. Land 15.11.2011 12.11.2012 Two harrows followed by one
preparation laddering to make the soil well
pulverized and make the land free of
clods and weeds. (Fig.)
2. Lay-out 18.11.2011 14.11.2012 Lay-out was done according to the
given plan (Fig.)
3. Chemical, Application Application Nitrogen @100 kg.ha-1 as urea,
biofertilizer, of chemical of chemical phosphorous @50 kg.ha-1 as SSP and
vermicompost fertilizer – fertilizer – potash @50 kg.ha-1 at MOP were
and cow dung 18.11.2011 14.11.2012 supplied as basal application in each
application plot just before sowing. This was done
after the lay-out of the experiment.
Bio-fertilizer Bio-fertilizer Ratio was same for each plot but
and and amount were different according to the
vermicompost vermicompost treatment combination. The treatments
application – application – were as the following:
22.11.2011 19.11.2012 T1- Recommended dose of chemical
fertilizer (100:50:50, i.e., 100kg ha-1N :
50kg ha-1P : 50kg ha-1K)
T2- ½ of recommended dose of

chemical fertilizer (50kg ha-1N: 25kg
ha-1P : 25kg ha-1K) : vermicompost
(2.5t ha-1 )

chemical fertilizer (50kg ha-1N : 25kg
[48]
ha-1P : 25kg ha-1K) : Municipal Waste

(2.5t ha-1)
T4- 75 % NPK + vermicompost(2.5t ha-

1
)
T5- 75 % NPK + Municipal Waste (2.5t

ha-1)
T6- 75 % NPK + vermicompost (2.5t

ha-1) + Azotobacter and PSB (7.5 kg/ha
each) and
T7 – 75 % NPK + Municipal Waste

(2.5t ha-1) + Azotobacter and PSB (7.5
kg/ha each).
4. Seed 22.11.2011 19.11.2012 Mustard seeds were sown continuously

inoculation and on line at 30 cm row to row distance.
sowing Before sowing seed inoculation has
been done for 12 hours with
Azotobacter, Phosphobacter
biofertilizer for the treatments 6 and 7.
5. Thinning 3.12.2011 1.12.2012 Thinning was made keeping 15 cm
plant to plant distance within the rows.
6. Intercultural 25.12.2011 22.12.2012 Simultaneous hoeing and weeding was
operation made to keep the plot free from weeds.
7. Irrigation 3.12.2011 1.12.2012 The crop was irrigated on different
17.12.2011 15.12.2012 dates.
31.12.2011 29.12.2012
8. Leaves and 22.12.2011 19.12.2012 Leaves and plant collection for
[49]
plant sample 6.1.2012 3.1.2013 agronomic and biochemical analysis

collection 21.1.2012 18.1.2013 30DAS, 45DAS and 60DAS.
9. Harvesting 18.2.2012 15.2.2013 Harvesting was made after the crop
matured. The crop was harvested with
sickle in the morning hours to avoid
shattering of the siliquae. Earmarked
(except ring line) portion plants were
tied in bundles and tagged with
corresponding treatments.
10. Threshing 23.2.2012 21.2.2013 The harvested bundles were stacked for
5 days, sun dried and then threshed.
After sun drying and cleaning of the
threshed mustard grain, weighing was
made to have the yield (t ha-1) of the
respective treatments.
Table 3.13 Calendar of operations for paddy
Operation Date Details of operations

2012 2013
1. Land preparation 21.06.2012 24.06.2013 Wet soils were well pulverized by
for seed bed power tiller followed by laddering.
preparation Organic manure and chemical fertilizer
were applied before final laddering.
2. Seed sowing 21.06.2012 24.06.2013
3. Land preparation 14.07.2012 16.07.2013 Lay-out was done according to the
for main field and given plan (Fig.1)
Lay-out
4. Chemical 24.07.2012 26.07.2013 Nitrogen @70 kg.ha-1 as urea,
fertilizer phosphorous @35 kg.ha-1 as SSP and
application potash @35 kg.ha-1 at MOP were
[50]
5. Vermicompost 27.07.2012 30.07.2013 supplied as basal application in each

and bio-fertilizer plot just before sowing. This was done
application after the lay-out of the experiment.
Ratio was same for each plot but
amount were different according to the
treatment combination. The treatments
were as the following:
T1- Recommended dose of chemical
fertilizer (70:35:35, i.e., 70kg.ha-1N :
35kg.ha-1P : 35kg.ha-1K)

chemical fertilizer (35kg.ha-1N: 17.5
kg.ha-1P : 17.5 kg.ha-1K) :
-1
vermicompost (2.5t ha )
T3- 1/2 of recommended dose of

chemical fertilizer (35 kg.ha-1N : 17.4
kg.ha-1P : 17.4 kg.ha-1K) : cow dung
(2.5t ha-1)
T4- 75 % NPK + vermicompost(2.5t

ha-1)
T5- 75 % NPK + cow dung (2.5t ha-1)
T6- 75 % NPK + vermicompost (2.5t

ha-1) + Azotobacter and PSB (7.5 kg/ha
each) and
T7 - 75 % NPK + cow dung (2.5t ha-1)
[51]
+ Azotobacter and PSB (7.5 kg/ha

each).
6. Transplanting 29.07.2012 31.07.2013 Seedlings uprooted from the seed bed

and transplanted at required spacing
taking 2-3 seedlings per hill.
7. Top dressing and 16.08.2012 19.08.2013 Half of the N applied followed by hand
weeding weeding.
8. Final top dressing 5.09.2012 8.09.2013 Half of the K and N applied followed
and weeding by hand weeding
9. Irrigation No need for extra irrigation. Because
plenty of rainfall.
10. Leaves and plant 29.08.2012 31.08.2013 Leaves and plant collection for
sample collection 13.09.2012 15.09.2013 agronomic and biochemical analysis
28.09.2012 30.09.2013 30DAT, 45DAT and 60DAT.
11. Harvesting 29.10.2012 1.11.2013 Harvesting was made after the crop
matured. Earmarked (except ring line)
portion plants were tied in bundles and
tagged with corresponding treatments.
Harvested crops were kept in field 2-3
days for sun drying and threshed
separately from each plots.
12. Threshing and 10.11.2012 13.11.2013 The harvested bundles were stacked for
weighing 5 days, sun dried and then threshed.
After sun drying and cleaning of the
threshed paddy grain, weighing was
made to have the yield (t ha-1) of the
respective treatments.
[52]
3.4 Methods of recording observations
Sampling and data recording are very important aspects of any scientific research.
Improper sampling and data recording procedures mislead the entire research work. It is usually
impossible to measure every individual in the population from any experiment. So a sub-sample
must be taken of a portion of the individuals in the population. The manner in which the sample
is taken and the number of individuals included in the sample affect the adequacy of the sample.
An appropriate sample is one that measures as closely as possible the value that would be
obtained if all individuals in the population were measured. The difference between the sample
value and the population value constitutes the sampling error. Thus, a good sampling procedure
must give a small sampling error. The observations for the morpho-physiological growth
attributes, yield attributes and yield were taken at various stages of crop growth from the area of
ear-marked for destructive sampling. Border rows and plants around each plot were not taken
into consideration for observation(s) and yield estimation to avoid border effect.
3.4.1 Growth attributes of mustard
3.4.1.1 Plant height
The plants from each plot were randomly selected and height of those plants was scaled
from ground level to the tip of the stem on three dates (30 DAS, 45 DAS and 60 DAS). Average
of the ten plants height was taken into consideration.
3.4.1.2 Length of Root
Similarly, ten randomly selected plants from each plot were uprooted with much care to
avoid any tear-out of roots. Roots were scaled and average of ten was taken.
3.4.1.3 Angle of Branching
In case of mustard angle between the branches and the main stem axis was measured with
the help of a thread and diagonal scale at an equal distance both in stem and branches.
[53]
3.4.2 Growth attributes of paddy
3.4.2.1 Height of plant
At maturity ten plants from each plot were randomly selected and height of these plants was
measured from ground level to the tip of the plant.
3.4.2.2 Length of Root
Similarly, ten randomly selected plants from each plot were uprooted with much care to avoid
any tear-out of roots. Roots were scaled and average of ten was taken.
3.4.2.3 Number of tiller per hill
At 20 DAT ten hills were randomly selected from each plot and number of tiller were counted.
Average number of tillers of the ten hills was taken into consideration.
3.4.3 Yield components, their associate characters and yield of mustard
3.4.3.1 Length and diameter of siliquae
Ten number of siliquae were selected randomly from upper, middle and lower portion of
plants from each plot to measure length and diameter with ribbon. Then the ribbon length was
scaled and final average lengths were tabulated.
3.5.3.2 Number of seeds per siliquae
Ten siliquae of different sizes were randomly selected at maturity from each plot and they
were excised carefully. Total number of seeds was counted and the average was tabulated.
3.5.3.3 Number of siliquae per plant
Ten plants were randomly selected at maturity from each plot and total number of
sliquaes per plant was counted and average was tabulated.
[54]
3.5.3.4 Test weight of grain (1000 seed weight)
After threshing, cleaning and sun drying of composite seed sample from each plot was
taken and 1000 seeds were counted separately for each treatment and weighed to record test
weight.
3.4.3.5 Seed yield
After threshing, cleaning and sun drying of composite seed sample from 1.0 m2 area of
each plot was taken and total seeds were weighed to record as grain yield.
3.4.3.6 Straw Yield
After harvesting the siliquae from the plants the rest part (straw) were weighed to record
as straw yield.
3.4.4 Yield components, their associate characters and yield of paddy
3.4.4.1 Number of panicle per hill
Ten hills were randomly selected from each plot on 45 DAT. Number of panicle were counted
from each hill. Average numbers of panicle of the ten hills were taken into consideration.
3.4.4.2 Panicle length
Ten numbers of panicles from each of the replicated plots were randomly selected, just before
harvesting and each of the panicles were scaled from bottom to tip. Average of the ten panicles
length was taken into consideration.
3.4.4.3 Number of tiller per hill
At 20 DAT ten hills were randomly selected from each plot and number of tiller were counted.
Average number of tillers of the ten hills was taken into consideration.
3.4.4.4 Number of panicle per hill
Ten hills were randomly selected from each plot on 45 DAT. Number of panicle were counted
from each hill. Average number of panicle of the ten hills was taken into consideration.
[55]
3.4.4.5 Number of grains per panicle
At harvest 20 numbers of panicle were randomly selected at maturity from each plot and they
were excised carefully. Total number of grains was counted and the average was tabulated.
3.4.4.6 Number of chaffy grains per panicle
Just like counting of grains per panicle, number of chaffy grains was counted from same panicle.
Average numbers of chaffy grains from each panicle were taken into consideration.
3.4.4.7 Number of filled grains per panicle
Filled grains per panicle were determined by subtracting chaffy grains from total grain of each
panicle which are used for total grain and chaffy grain counting. Average numbers of filled
grains of the 20 panicles were taken into consideration.
3.4.4.8 Test weight of grains
After threshing, cleaning and sun drying of composite grain sample from each plot was taken and
1000 grains were counted separately for each treatment and weighed to record test weight.
3.4.4.9 Grain yield
After threshing, cleaning and sun drying of composite grain sample from 1.0 m2 area of each plot
was taken and total grains were weighed to record as grain yield.
3.4.4.10 Straw/dry plant yield
After harvesting the grains from the plants the rest part (straw) were weighed to record as straw
yield.
3.5 Leaf Area Index (LAI)
The representative green leaf lamina (after excluding the leaf petiole) from each
treatment were taken randomly from destructive samples and the area of leaves was measured by
leaf area meter software (LAN 101.). Leaves were then dried in a hot air oven at 80 C till
constant weights were obtained and then weights were recorded. The ratio of area/weight of the
measured leaves was used to determine the leaf area indices (Kemp, 1960). Since LAI is the area
[56]
of leaf surface per unit of land surface (Watson, 1952), it (LAI) was obtained by multiplying this
ratio of area/weight with the dry weight of green leaves produced per unit area (square meter) of
land surface. It can be calculated with the following formula:
LeafArea
LAI =
LandArea
3.6 Leaf Area Ratio (LAR)
Leaf area ratio is the ratio of leaf area and total biomass. It can be calculated with the
following formula:
LA 2 -1
LAR = mg
W
Where, LA =leaf area in m2 and W = dry weight of plant
3.7 Leaf Area Duration (LAD)

Leaf area duration is the integrated leaf area index (LAI) over time. It can be calculated
with the following formula:
( LAI 1 + LAI 2) X (t 2 − t1)

LAD =
2
Where, LAI1 and LAI2 are leaf area indices recorded at times t1 and t2, respectively.
3.8 Crop Growth Rate (CGR)

Crop growth rate during the period of two growth stages was determined with the
following formula as proposed by Hunt (1978):
W 2 − W1
CGR = g m-2day-1
t 2 − t1
Where, w1 and w2 are dry weights (gm-2) at first and second harvests taken at times t1 and t2
respectively.
[57]
3.9 Net Assimilation Rate (NAR)

Net assimilation rate (NAR) was calculated by using the formula given by Watson
(1952):
W 2 − W1 L 2 − L1
NAR = X g m-2 day-1
t 2 − t1 log L 2 − log L1
Where, W2 and W1 are the final and initial dry weights of aerial plant parts per unit area at the
times t1 and t2, respectively, and L2 and L1 are the final and initial leaf area indices at respective
times.
3.10 Biomass
Ten randomly selected plants from each plot were uprooted with much care to avoid any
tear-out of roots and oven dried the root, shoot and leaves separately at 80 º C for 24 hours and
subsequently dry weight was taken.
3.11 Harvest Index

Harvest index percentage was calculated by using the formula given by Donald &
Hamblin (1976):
EconomicYield
HI ( % ) = X 100
Bio log icalYield
Where, economic yield refers to the grain yield and biological yield refers to the both grain yield
as well as straw yield including root, etc. From each plot grain yield was recorded and expressed
it into gm-1. Root and shoot i.e., Straw yield was also recorded from each individual plot in gm-1.
Then following the above calculation method HI was calculated.
3.12 Estimation of Chlorophyll level from physiologically active leaf for mustard and flag
leaf for paddy
For chlorophyll (a, b and total) estimation, physiologically active leaves (3rd or 4th from
the top) were collected randomly from 5-plants of a plot to represent the sample. The method of
Arnon (1949) was followed for the chlorophyll estimation. (Fig)
Materials required
1. Acetone
[58]
2. Whatmann filter paper No. 1

3. Funnel stands
4. Mortar and pestle
5. Volumetric flask (250ml), and
6. Spectrophotometer (Systronics-118)
Procedure
A hundred mg of fresh leaf material excluding midribs from a mixed representative sample
was (accurately) weighed on a electronic monopan balance and thoroughly macerated in a
mortar with a pestle in 2ml of 80% acetone. The homogenate was filtered through a sheet of
Whatman filter paper No. 1, and the filtrate was collected in a volumetric flask. The
homogenate on the filter paper was washed with additional 2 ml of 80% acetone 3-4 times
until it became colourless. The Volume of the filtrate was adjusted to 10 ml with 80 %
acetone. The absorbance (oA) of the chlorophyll extract (filtrate) was measured on a
spectrophotometer at 645nm, 652 nm, and 663nm. Absorbances of duplicate samples were
recorded. Following formulae were used for calculation of chlorophyll a, b and total
chlorophyll:
Chlorophyll-a (mg g-1 FW) = [12.7 × D663 – 2.69 × D645] × V/1000 × W
Chlorophyll-b (mg g-1 FW) = [22.9 × D645 – 4.68 × D663] × V/1000 × W
Total Chlorophyll (mg g-1 FW) = D652 × 1000/345 × V/1000 × W
Where, D = Optical density, V = Final volume of 80% acetone (25 ml), W = Fresh wt.
Sample taken (0.1 g), FW = Fresh weight
3.13 Estimation of Total soluble sugar from physiologically active leaf for mustard and flag
leaf for paddy
According to the method of Mc. Cready et al. (1950) absorbance maximum at 630 nm was
measured. A standard calibration curve was obtained with a series of concentration of D-glucose.
[59]
Principle
Sugar (D-glucose) reacts with the anthrone reagent to give a blue green solution having
absorbance maximum at 630 nm. By measuring the absorbance at a wavelength of 630 nm of a
series of standard solution prepared similarly as the test solution, a standard curve is drawn by
plotting absorbance vs. concentration and the concentration of sugar in the test solution (sample)
may then be known from the standard curve by measuring its absorbance.
Materials required
1. 0.2% anthrone solution: 200 mg of anthrone was dissolved immediately before use in 100
ml conc. H2SO4 under refrigeration condition.
2. Standard glucose solution: In 100 ml of distilled water 100mg of D-glucose were

dissolved to make a stock solution. From this stock solution one tenth diluted solution
was made as a working standard solution. A few drops of toluene was added to these
solutions in order to avoid bacterial contamination and stored in a refrigerator.
3. Glass wares: Test tubes, beakers, pipettes, reagent bottles, measuring cylinder, centrifuge
tube.
4. Miscellaneous materials: Test tube rack, mortar and pestle.
Procedure
1. Preparation of different standard sugar solutions of different concentrations for standard

calibration curve: From the working standard solution 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0
ml were pipette out into test tubes, and the volume was made up to 1ml with
distilled water respectively. To the each test tube 4ml of the anthrone reagent was
added. They were heated for 8 minutes in a boiling water bath, and then cooled to
room temperature (25 ºC) quickly. The absorbance of the developed green to dark
green colour was measured at 630 nm. (For calibration curve): A standard curve
was drawn by using Microsoft Excel and the amount of sugar present in the
sample tube was calculated by using the calibration curve.
2. Preparation of the sample: About 1.0 g of fresh leaves was weighed and crushed with a
pestle in a mortar first with 3 ml and then with 7 ml distilled water. This was
transferred into a centrifuge tube and centrifuged for 10 minutes at 10,000 rpm.
[60]
The supernatant was collected. 1 ml from this solution was pipette out in a test
tube, 4 ml freshly prepared 0.2 % anthrone reagent was added in it and incubated
for 10 minutes at 100 0C. This was allowed to cool to room temperature.
3.14 Estimation of Proline from physiologically active leaf for mustard and flag leaf for
paddy
Proline was estimated by following the methods of Bates et al. (1973)
Materials required
1. Acid ninhydrin: 1.25g ninhydrin was taken in 30ml glacial acetic acid and 20ml 6M
phosphoric acid, with agitation was warmed until dissolved.
2. 3% aqueous sulphosalicylic acid
3. Glacial acetic acid
4. Toluene
5. Proline standard solution: 50 mg of L-proline was taken in a 50ml volumetric flask and
volume was made up to the mark with distilled water. 10ml of this stock standard was taken and
diluted to 100 ml for working standard (0.1mg/ml) solution.
6. Sample – leaf
7. Glasswares - test tubes, beakers, macro and micropipettes, reagent bottles, measuring
cylinder, cuvette and centrifuge tubes .
Procedure
1. Preparation of different standard proline ( L-proline ) solutions ( for calibration curve ) :
A set of standard solutions including the blank was prepared into test tubes with different
aliquots of working standard solutions (L-proline) along with water using micro and macro
pipettes respectively. The final volume is made up to 2 ml in all the tubes. Then 2 ml of glacial
acetic acid and 2 ml of acid ninhydrin was added into it. After that the mixture was heated on a
boiling water bath for 1 hr. Then the reaction is terminated by placing the tubes in the deep
fridge chamber. Then 4 ml of toluene is added to the mixture and stirred well for 20-30
[61]
seconds. Then the toluene layer is separated and warmed up to the room temperature. The red
colour intensity is measured at 520 nm.
2. Preparation of the sample: Required amount of plant material was extracted by

homogenizing in 10 ml of 3% aqueous sulphosalicylic acid. The homogenate was filtered
through Whatman No. 42 filter paper. 2 ml of this filtrate was taken in a test tube and 2 ml
of glacial acetic acid and 2 ml of acid ninhydrin was added. Then the mixture is heated in
a boiling water bath for 1 hr. Then the reaction is terminated by placing the tube in the
freeze. Then 4 ml toluene was added to the reaction mixture stirred well for 20-30
seconds. Then the toluene layer is separated and the mixture is warmed to room
temperature. The absorbances of the unknown solution were measured at 520 nm.
3. Calibration curve: A plot of the absorbance against the concentration is drawn using
Microsoft excel.
4. Calculation: The concentration of the unknown sample solution was found from the
calibration curve.
3.15 Estimation of Photosynthetic rate from physiologically active leaf for mustard and flag
leaf for paddy
Photosynthetic rate was estimated with the help of LICOR-6400XT and calculated.
3.16 Methods of soil samples collection and analysis:
Soil samples from randomly selected 4 spots of each plot, up to the depth of 15 cm were
collected by soil auger. These sub-samples were air dried and grinded thoroughly by the wooden
mortar and pastels. The samples were sieved by 80 mesh sieve. After through mixing, 100-150 g
soil samples were kept in a clean polythene packet for analysis.
3.16.1 Soil temperature (Trivedy and Goel, 1998)
Materials required
1. Soil
2. Soil thermometer
3. Scale
4. Distilled water
[62]
Procedure
The cone of the soil thermometer was inserted up to desired depth of soil and the reading was
noted directly in the stem which is open in the air.
3.16.2 Specific Gravity of soil (Saxena, 1998)
Materials required
1. Oven
2. Glass bottles
3. Chemical balance
Procedure
The soil sample was dried in an oven at 105°C until a constant weight is obtained. A pre-
weighed specific gravity bottle was taken (whose volume was known) and filled with the dried
soil. Its weight is recorded. Another same pre-weighed specific gravity bottle was taken of same
volume and filled with the dried soil. Its weight is recorded. Another same pre-weighed specific
gravity bottle was taken of same volume and filled it with distilled water and its weight is
recorded.
Calculation
Specific gravity = A2 –A1/ B2 - B1
Where A2= weight of bottle with soil
A1= weight of empty bottle used for soil
B2 = Weight of the bottle with distilled water
B1 = Weight of the empty bottle used for distilled water.
3.16.3 Moisture Content (Saxena, 1998)
Materials required
1. Oven
2. Chemical balance
[63]
Method
Fresh homogenized sample of soil was taken and weighed. The sample was dried in an
oven at 105°C until a constant weight was obtained. The sample is cooled in a desiccators and
the final weight of sample was recorded.
Calculation
Moisture content (%) = I-F/I × 100
Where I = initial weight of the sample (g)
F =Final weight of the sample (g)
3.16.4 Bulk Density of soil (Gupta, 2004)
Materials required
1. Specific gravity bottle (50ml capacity)
2. Chemical balance
Method
Specific gravity bottle of 50 ml capacity without the stopper was weighed. Then it was
filled with the soil sample up to the edge of the neck tapping the bottle up to 20 times and
weighed. The bulk or apparent density was obtained by dividing the weight of the soil with
volume of the soil.
Calculation
Bulk density = W2-W1 / V
Where, weight of the empty bottle = W1
Weight of the bottle +soil = W2
Volume of soil =V
3.16.5 Particle density of soil (Black, 1965)
Materials required
1. Electric heater
[64]
2. Chemical balance
3. Pycnometer of 25 ml capacity
Method
A clean dry pycnometer was weighed out and filled it with oven dry soil sample upto half
of its volume. The outside and neck of the pycnometer bottle was cleaned to remove any soil
adhering. The stopper was inserted and weighed. Then boiled and cooled distilled water was
added into the pycnometer (partially filled with soil until the level of water reaches 3/4th of the
volume of the pycnometer). Now the pycnometer was heated to boil the contents gently to
remove the entrapped air. Now the contents were agitated gently to remove the entrapped air.
Now the contents were agitated gently to prevent of soil by foaming. After that the contents was
cooled and space in the pycnometer was filled with distilled water. Then the stopper was
inserted. The outside of pycnometer was dried by wiping it dry with a cloth and weighed. After
that, the soil water suspension from the pycnometer was removed, washed with tap water and
rinsed it with distilled water. Then the pycnometer was filled with distilled water completely.
Now the stopper was inserted spilling some water through the mouth. The outside of pycnometer
was dried by wiping it dry with a cloth and weighed.
Calculations
Particle density in g/cm3 = W2-W1 / (W4-W1) - (W3- W2)
Where, W1= Weight of the empty pycnometer
W2 = Weight of the pycnometer + soil upto half of its volume
W3 = Weight of the pycnometer +1/2 soil and ½ water by volume.
W4 = Weight of the pycnometer completely filled with water.
3.16.6 Porosity (Black, 1965)
The bulk density (Db) and Particle density (Dp) was measured. From this the % pore
space was calculated by using the following formula
% pore space = [100 – (Db / Dp × 100)]
[65]
3.16.7 Estimation of pH from soil (Jackson, 1972)
Materials required
1. pH meter (Sartorius-CP64) with glass electrodes.
2. Thermometer
3. Buffer solutions, preferably of pH 4.0, 7.0 and 9.2 buffers: Buffer solutions were
prepared by dissolving pH tablets with ready-made capsule which were kept in a 100 ml
volumetric flask and thoroughly mixed with distilled water and the volume was made
upto the mark. After dissolving the substance in the water the capsule wall was removed
and the solution was ready for desired pH.
Source of pH tablets: E. Merck (India) ltd, Worli, Mumbai-400018
Procedure
The switch was put on and pH 7.0 was recorded. The electrode was washed with distilled water
and connected with the pH meter. The electrode was dipped in buffer of pH 4.0 and move the
temperature compensation knob was moved to the temperature of buffer. The selector switch was
turned to pH range of 0-7 and adjusted to set buffer knob until the meter reads pH 4.0. The
selector switch was moved to zero. The electrode was removed from buffer, and washed with
distilled water. Again the electrode was dipped in a in a buffer of pH 9.2. The selector switch
was turned to pH range of 7-14 and adjusted the set buffer knob until the meter reads pH 9.2. In
doing so, the meter was calibrated both for pH ranges from 0 to 7 and from 7 to 14. The selector
switch was put to zero. The electrode was washed with distilled water and dipped in the sample.
The temperature compensation knob was adjusted to the temperature of sample. The selector
switch was put to pH range of 0 to 7 and the meter reading was taken for the pH of sample. If pH
exceeds 7, the selector switch was moved to pH range of 7 to 14 and the meter reading was again
taken. The selector switch was again turned to zero, then the instrument was switched off and the
electrode was removed. The electrode was dipped in distilled water when not in use.
[66]
3.16.8 Estimation of conductivity of soil (Trivedy and Goel, 1998)
Materials required
1. Conductivity meter (Systronics, Model No-335)
2. Thermometer
3. Glass
Procedure
To prepare 1:5 soil suspensions, 20g soil was taken in 100ml of aerated distilled water
and was shaked mechanically for about 1 hour. The conductivity of the soil suspension was
measured within one hour of preparation of soil suspension by directly dipping the conductivity
cell into the suspension. The temperature of the soil suspension was subsequently taken.
Calculation
EC (S) = OEC × CC × TF at 25°C
Where, OEC = observed conductance;
CC cell constant (supplied by the manufacturer); and
TF = temperature factor.
3.16.9 Estimation of organic carbon from soil (Walkly, 1947)
Materials required
1. Standard 1(N) K2Cr2O7 solution: 12.258 g air dried K2Cr2O7 was weighed out in a 250 ml
volumetric flask, dissolved and diluted up to mark with distilled water.
2. Conc. H2SO4 (sp.gr. 1.84)
3. Syrupy H3PO4 (35%)
4. 0.5 (N) Mohr salt solution: 49.0 g (NH4)2SO4, FeSO4, 6H2O was dissolved in 200 ml
distilled water and 5 ml conc. H2SO4 and diluted to 250 ml.
5. Diphenyl amine indicator: 0.5 g of diphenyl amine was dissolved in 20 ml water and 100
ml of conc. H2SO4.
[67]
Procedure
1. Two 500 ml conical flask was taken and 1.0 g of soil sample was added to one of the
flask. Then 10 ml of K2Cr2O7 solution and 20 ml of conc. H2SO4 was added to each of
the flask. Then the flask were covered with a watch glass and allowed to stand for about
half an hour. After that 200 ml of distilled water was added and then 10ml of
orthophosphoric acid was added to each of the flask.The solution turned blue in colour
after addition of 1 ml diphenyl amine indicator. (Hence prior to titration 10 drops
diphenylamine was added into the flask). The solution was titrated against 0.5 (N)
Mhor’s salt or ferrous ammonium sulphate.The solution turned blue to green in colour at
the end of the titration.
Calculation
Organic carbon % in the soil sample
Q = 0.5 × (B – S) × 0.003 × (100/W) …………………… (1)
Where, W = weight of the soil sample taken.
B = volume of FAS solution used for blank titration (in ml).
S = volume of FAS solution used in sample titration (in ml).
So, putting the values of W, B, S in the equation (1) we get the value of Q.
3.16.10 Estimation of soil available nitrogen (Subbiah and Asija, 1956)
Materials required
1. KMnO4 solution (0.32%)
2. NaOH solution (2.5%)
3. 0.02 (N) H2SO4
4. Mixed indicator (0.07g Methyl red + 0.1 g Bromocresol green dissolved in 100ml of 95%
alcohol)
5. Boric acid solution (2%)
[68]
Procedure
20g soil sample was taken in 800ml dry Kjeldahl flask.To this 20ml of water was added
swirled. Few glass beads were added to prevent bumping during distillation. 100ml of 0.32%
KMnO4 was added to this. 20ml of boric acid pipette out and mixed with mix indicator solution
in a conical flask and the end of the delivery tube was dipped into it. 100ml of 2.5% NaOH was
added in the distillation flask and immediately fitted up in the distillation apparatus. The content
was distilled at a steady rate and the liberated ammonia was collected in a conical flask
containing boric acid solution with mixed indicator. With the absorption of NH3 the pinkish
colour turns to green, approximately 100 ml of distillate collected in about 30 minutes. The
distillate was titrated against 0.02 N H2SO4 to the original shade pinkish.
Calculation
Available nitrogen in kg.ha-1 = 0.0028 × 1000 × 2.24 × 106/ 0.02
3.16.11 Estimation of soil available Potassium (Black, 1965)
Materials required
1. 1(N) CH3COONH4
2. Standard KCl solution (1000 ppm)- Dissolve 1.907 g KCl dried at 110°C and dilute to
1000 ml with distilled water; 1ml = 1.00 mg K
Procedure
5g air dried soil was placed in a 100ml conical flask and 25 ml of 1(N) CH3COONH4
solution with pH-7.0 was added. The mixture was shaken well on a mechanical shaker for 5
minutes. It was then filtered through Whatmann filter paper no. 42, first few ml of the filtrate
was discarded Standard curve preparation for potassium:
From the 1000ppm working standard 100ppm working standard potassium solution were
prepared. From this 100 ppm solution 0, 5, 10, 15, 20 ppm of potassium solution was prepared
separately. Now the gas and air pressures of the flame photometer was adjusted and set to the
appropriate filter. After that the flame photometer readings was adjusted to zero with the blank
and at 100 for the maximum ppm, say 20ppm. Then a standard curve was prepared by plotting
[69]
the flame photometer readings along ‘Y’ axis and the different concentrations (ppm) along ‘X’
Axis. Now the concentration of the unknown sample was plotted by fitting in the standard curve.
Calculation
Available K+ in kg/ha = C×Volume of Extractant/ wt of soil taken×2.24 kg.ha-1
Where, C = ppm obtained from the standard curve
= conversion factor
3.16.12 Estimation of NaHCO3 extractable phosphate phosphorous (Olsen et al., 1954)
Materials required
1. 0.5 (M) NaHCO3 solution
2. Darco – G-60 Charcoal
3. Amonium molybdate solution
4. Stannous chloride solution
5. Stock Phosphate solution- Dissolve 0.439 g of potassium dihydrogen phosphate (AR), in

about half a liter of distilled water. To it 25 ml of 7(N) H2SO4 (approx) was added and
made the volume to liter with distilled water. This gives 100 ppm stock solution of
phosphate. From this, 2 ppm working standard was prepared by 50 times dilution of the
stock solution.
Procedure
Preparation of standard curve
From the working standard of 2 ppm phosphate solution 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 20 ml of solutions

were pipette out in 50 ml respective volumetric flasks. It is then diluted with little amount of
distilled water. Then 5 ml of NaHCO3 solution was added into it. Again mixture was diluted with
distilled water. After that 5 ml of ammonium molybdate was added into it. Then the mixture was
again diluted with water. After that, 5-6 drops of stannous chloride was added. Then the volume
was made upto the mark with distilled water. The absorbance was measured at 690nm.
[70]
Sample analysis
A. Extraction: 5g soil sample (air dried) was weighed out in a 100 ml conical flask. Then to it
added a pinch of Darco-G 60 charcoal and 20 ml of 0.5M NaHCO3 solution. The mixture was
shacked in the flask for half an hour on a mechanical shaker and filtered through Whatman No. 1
filter paper. A blank set was prepared with all the reagents.
B. Analytical determination: 5 ml of the extractant was pipette out in a 50 ml volumetric flask.

Then respective reagents were added to the volumetric flask as the standard curve preparation
and absorbance were measured at 690 nm.
Calculation
Available phosphorous pentoxide (P2O5) kg.ha-1 = A × 100 × 2.24 × 2.29 kg.ha-1
Where, A = concentration obtained from standard curve
3.16.13 Estimation of available zinc, copper, manganese and iron (Lindsay and Novell et al.
1978) in soil
Principle:
Diethylene triamine penta acetic acid, a chelating agent, combine with free metal cations in soil
solution to form ring like soluble complexes or chelates and separate them from soil which are
then estimated by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer.
Equipments and Apparatus:
Conical flask (100ml), plastic vial (20ml), filter paper, funnel, double distilled water, filter paper
(Whatman no. 2), Atomic absorption spectrophotometer with cathode lamp for Zn, Fe, Cu and
Mn (single element or multi element).
Reagents:
1. DTPA extracting solution: 1.967 g DTPA, 1.47 g CaCl2, 13.1 ml Tri Ethanol Amine was
poured into 1L volumetric flask and dissolved by double distilled water to 1L. The PH of
the extractant was adjusted to 7.3±0.5.
2. Standard solution for Zn, Fe, Mn, and Cu: 1000ppm standard solution from Merck kgaa
64271 Darmstadt Germany was collected.
[71]
Procedure:
1. 10g soil sample was taken into 10ml conical flask, added 20ml DTPA extractant and
shacked for 2 hours and then filtered it.
2. The AAS (PerkinElmer, Model- Analyst200AA) was calibrated by standard solution of

different concentration and reading of the unknown solution was recorded.
Calculation:
1. Reading of unknown solution = X
2. Dilution factor =2
3. Concentration in soil =X 2 mg kg-1
3.16.14 Analysis of soil biological parameters
Soil biological parameters were analyzed in reference to “Experiments in Microbiology

and Plant Physiology – Tissue culture and Mushroom Production Technology” (Aneja, 2002).
3.16.14.1 Standard Plate Count of Bacteria from soil
Requirements
1. Thronton’s standardized agar medium
i) Dipotassium phosphate 1.0 g
ii) Potassium nitrate 0.5 g
iii) Magnesium sulphate 0.2 g
iv) Calcium chloride 0.1 g
v) Sodium chloride 0.1 g
vi) Ferric chloride trace
vii) Asparagin 0.5 g
viii) Agar Agar 15 g
ix) Mannitol 1.0 g
x) Distilled water 1.0 L
[72]
pH 7.2 ± 0.1
2. Soil sample
3. Pipettes(10ml and 1 ml capacity)
4. Conical flasks (250 ml and 500 ml capacity)
5. Incubator
6. Culture tubes
7. Petridishes
8. Incubator
9. Laminar air flow
10. Autoclave
Procedure
1g of soil was dissolved in 9 ml of sterile glass distilled water and was taken in each test
tube kept in a test tube stand. 1 ml of soil solution was added to 9 ml of sterile distilled water to
give a dilution of 10-1. Similarly, 1 ml of solution from this test tube was transferred to 9 ml
sterile distilled water in the next tube to prepare a dilution of 10-2. Thus, dilution of 10-3, 10-4, 10-
5
, 10-6, 10-7 were prepared. About 25 ml of molten agar was plated in petridishes and 1 ml of
soil mixed with water from each dilution was added to the Thronton’s agar plates in three
replicates. The plates were gently shaken so as to spread soil suspension uniformly on the
medium. The inoculated plates were incubated at 25±1×C for 24-48 hrs. The bacterial colony
forming units counted at a mean dilution after 48 hrs. Dry weight of the 1 g soil sample was also
recorded subsequently.
Calculation
Colony Forming Units (CFUs) g-1 dry soil
= Average number of colonies / Dry weight of soil × Dilution factor
[73]
3.16.14.2 Standard Plate Count of Fungi from soil
Requirements
1. Martin’s agar medium (Peptone – Dextrose- Rosebengal Agar Medium)
i) Agar 20g
ii) KH2PO4 1.0g
iii) MgSO4, 7H2O 0.5 g
iv) Peptone 5.0 g
v) Dextrose 10.0g
vi) Distilled water 1ltr
vii) Rose Bengal (1%) 3.3 ml
vii) Streptomycein 30mg
pH 5.0-5.5 ± 1
2. Soil sample
3. Distilled water
4. Petridishes
5. Conical flasks
6. Pipettes (1ml)
7. Incubator
8. Autoclave
9. Laminar air flow
Procedure
1g of soil was dissolved in 9ml of sterile glass distilled water and was taken in each test
tube kept in a test tube stand. 1 ml of soil solution was added to 9 ml of sterile distilled water to
give a dilution of 10-1. Similarly, 1 ml of solution from this test tube was transferred to 9 ml
sterile distilled water in the next tube to prepare a dilution of 10-2. Thus, dilution of 10-3, 10-4, 10-
[74]
5
, 10-6 were prepared. About 25 ml of molten Agar was plated in petridishes and 1 ml of soil
mixed with water from each dilution was added to the Martin’s agar plates in three replicates.
The plates were gently shaken so as to spread soil suspension uniformly on the medium. The
inoculated plates were incubated at 25±1°C for 96-120 hrs. The fungal colony forming units
counted at a mean dilution after 96 hrs. Dry weight of the 1g soil sample was also recorded
subsequently.
Calculation
Colony Forming Units (C.F.Us) g-1 dry soil
= Average number of colonies / Dry weight of soil × Dilution factor
3.17 Estimation of Oil in Oil Seeds (Sadasivam and Manickam, 1996)
Requirements
1. Petroleum Ether (60-80°C)
2. Whatmann filter paper
3. Soxhlet apparatus.
Method
Accurately 5g of whole mustard seed was weighed and pulverized in a mortar pestle. It is
then transferred into the folded filter paper. The mortar and pestle was washed carefully with
petroleum ether and the washings were poured into the filter paper fold. The sample packet was
placed in the butt tube of the Soxhlet extraction apparatus. The oil was extracted with petroleum
ether (150drops/minute) for 6hr. without interruption by gentle heating. After end of extraction
period it was allowed to cool and the extraction flask was dismantled. Now the ether was
evaporated on a water bath until no odour of the ether remains. It is then cooled at room
temperature. Now the moisture was carefully removed from outside of the flask and was
weighed. The heating was repeated until constant weight was recorded.
Calculation
Oil in ground sample (%) = Weight of oil (g)/Weight of sample (g) × 100
[75]
3.18 Statistical analysis
To analyze the tabulated data as observed in the field experiment and laboratory analysis
in different aspects the books of Coehran and Cox (1959), Fisher (1960), Panse and Sukhatme
(1967), Gomez and Gomez (1984) were consulted and finally MINITAB software was used to
calculate DMRT, CV(%), CD at 5% level of significance and LSD at 5% level of significance.
3.19 Method of Preparation of Vermicompost

A thatched roof shed preferably open from all sides with unpaved floor is erected in East-
West direction length wise to protect the site from direct sunlight. A shed area of 12 X 12
is sufficient to accommodate three vermin beds of 10 X3 each having 1 space in between
for treatment of 912 quintals of biodegradable municipal solid waste in a cycle of 4045 days. The
length of shed can be increased/decreased depending upon the quantity of waste to be treated and
availability of space. The height of thatched roof is kept at 8 feet from the centre and 6 feet from
the sides. The base of the site is raised at least 6 inches above ground to protect it from flooding
during the rains. The vermin beds are laid over the raised ground as per the procedure given
below. The site marked for vermin beds on the raised ground is watered and a 4 -6 layer of
any slowly biodegradable agricultural residue such as dried leaves/straw/sugarcane trash etc. is
laid over it after soaking with water. This is followed by 1 layer of Vermicompost or farm
yard manure. The loaded waste is finally covered with a Jute Mat to protect earthworms from
birds and insects. Water is sprinkled on the vermin beds daily according to requirement and
season to keep them moist. The waste is turned upside down fortnightly without disturbing the
basal layer (vermin bed).The appearance of black granular crumbly powder on top of vermin
beds indicate harvest stage of the compost. Watering is stopped for at least 5 days at this stage.
The earthworms go down and the compost is collected from the top without disturbing the lower
layers (vermin bed). The first lot of Vermicompost is ready for harvesting after 22½ months and
the subsequent lots can be harvested after every 6 weeks of loading. The vermin bed is loaded for
the next treatment cycle. A tractor load of MSW is collected and it is dumped in the dump yard.
Prepare a mixture of cow dung and dried Eichhornia leaves in 1:1 proportion. Release
earthworm at the rate 50 numbers/10 kg of mixture and keep it in shade. Sprinkle water over it
time to time to maintain moisture level. By this process, earthworms multiply 300 times within
one to two months. These earthworms can be used to prepare vermicompost.
[76]
3.20 Taxonomic classification of Eisenia fetida (Cuevas, 2005)
Phylum Annellida
Class Oligochaeta
Subclass Clitelata
Order Haplotaxia
Suborder Lumbricina
Superfamily Lumbricoidea
Family Lumbricidae
Subfamily Lumbricinae
Genus and species Eisenia fetida
3.21 Economic analysis
Economic comparison of the study was done on the basis of average cost of different
inputs and average price of grain and seed and their straw over all consecutive experiments.
Cost of different inputs, agronomic practices and price of grain and straw was considered
fixed to nullify the fluctuation of market price. Total cost of cultivation was calculated by
summing the individual cost on all the heads of expenditure e.g. seeds, land preparation; lay
out, vermicompost, bio-fertilizer, transplanting, weeding, harvesting etc. Gross return was
calculated by summing the value of seeds in case of mustard and value of grain and straw in
case of paddy. Net return was calculated by subtracting total cost of production from gross
return. The cost and return were recorded in Indian currency (Rupees). Benefit-cost ratio was
calculated dividing total return by total cost. Price of urea, super phosphate, muriate of
potash, vermicompost and bio-fertilizer were Rs. 6000/-, Rs. 24,920/-, Rs. 17,720/-, Rs.
2500/- per ton respectively. Price of Mustard seeds were Rs. 6600/- and Rs. 7300/- per ton in
respective two years. Price of paddy grain and straw were Rs. 13,533/- and Rs. 881/- and Rs.
12,845/- and Rs. 930/- per ton in consecutive two experimental years.
[77]
Results and Discussion
T his chapter represents a cumulative discussion of the research work conducted for three years
includes the screening of best combined dose of biofertilizer, vermicompost and chemical
fertilizer among the tested mustard (2011-12 and 2012-13) and paddy crop variety (2012 and
2013). The study includes analysis of crop growth parameters; physiological and biochemical
parameters and yield attributes including yield of mustard and paddy. Subsequently biochemical
parameters viz., level of chlorophyll, total sugar and proline from physiologically active leaf of
mustard and flag leaf of paddy were studied. Parameters like soil physical characteristics viz.,
temperature, specific gravity, bulk density, moisture content, particle density, soil porosity, as
well as soil chemical properties viz., N, P, K, soil micronutrients (Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, B, Ca, Mg),
pH, conductivity, organic carbon etc and biological properties including bacterial population
count, fungal population count were undertaken. Seed quality was also analyzed in terms of % of
oil content in mustard etc. All those parameters were studied on the basis of field trials of in
same field plot for all the above stated years.
4. Studied parameters of Mustard and paddy
4.1 Plant height and root length
Root length and plant height were recorded by measuring the length of plant and root
with a meter scale after uprooting the plants from the experimental field on 60 DAS in case of
mustard and 60 DAT in case of paddy. The root length of mustard of the field experiment
conducted in 2011-12 varied between 12.07 cm (T3) to 16.08cm (T4). In 2012-13 it varied
between 14.81 cm (T3) to 17.33 cm (T1). In case of paddy in 2012 it varied from 14.40 cm (T3) to
22.13 cm (T4) but in 2013 the root length of paddy of second experimental trail varied from
14.68 cm (T3) to 23.17 cm (T4).
The plant height of mustard varied from 65.05 cm (T3) to 101.50 cm (T6) and 77.44 cm
(T4) to 85.68 cm (T7) respectively in the two experimental field trials. On the other hand, the
plant height of paddy varied from 80.90 cm (T3) to 93.30 cm (T4) in 2012 and from 74.00 cm
(T3) to 95.15 cm (T4) in 2013.
According to the findings of Asghar et al. (2006) the application of biofertilizers

(Azotobacter and PSB) and vermicompost along with chemical fertilizers, might have increase
the nutrient use efficiency of the plants as the organic fertilizer acted as an excellent source of
macro- and micronutrients, and, therefore, increased the plant height and root length. The
[78]
presence of bioactive substances associated with low molecular weight fraction of humic acids,
capable of inducing changes in plant morphology and physiology, has also been reported with
vermicompost, which enhanced root elongation, lateral root emergence and plasma membrane
H+-ATPase activity of roots (Canellas et al. 2002). Some earlier reports (Ozer et al. 1999)
revealed positive and significant correlations between plant height and grain yield in rapeseed.
When the data were computed statistically for the years the results showed that plant
height and root length were significantly different for all the years of experiment for mustard and
paddy. DMRT results have been presented in Table 4.1 and 4.2. Data have been presented in Fig.
no. 4.1 and 4.2.
4.2 Angle of branching of mustard
Forde and Lorenzo (2001) studied on root growth and branching are favored in a nutrient-rich
environment and in the presence of hormones such as auxins that enable the plant to optimize the
exploitation of available resources, which are in turn transformed into photo-assimilates and
transported again to the root, consequently influencing plant growth and morphology in a
systemic manner. Vermicompost having hormone-like activity aids in greater root initiation,
increased root biomass and enhanced plant growth (Bachman & Metzger 2008).When angle of
branching were computed for both the years statistically significant results were recorded in case
of 2011-12 and 2012-13 as were found in case of in the DMRT analysis of data (Tables 4.5 and
Fig. 4.6 and 4.7).
4.3 Number of Siliquae/plant, siliquae diameter, length of siliquae and seeds/siliquae of

mustard
Assessment of siliquae per plant, siliquae diameter, length of siliquae and number of
seeds per siliquae were undertaken during both the experimental years. When length of siliquae
was computed in 2011-12, the highest length of siliquae was observed in T4 (4.5 cm) and lowest
in T7 (4.0 cm).In the second year of experiment, the value lies between T7 and T1 (4.2 cm) and T6
(4.4 cm). Results have been presented in Table 4.7 and Fig. 4.8, 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11. Statistically
significant results were obtained.
[79]
In case of siliquae diameter lowest results were found in T5 (1.1 and 1.51 cm) in both the
years and highest diameters were found in T3 (1.5 cm) and T4 (1.61 cm) in two consecutive
years. Results have been presented in Table (4.7). Statistically significant results were obtained.
In 2011-12, out of seven treatments undertaken for each trial, lowest siliquae per plant
was observed in T3 (40.33) and highest siliquae per plant were recorded in T4 (59.0). In the
second experiment of 2012-13 the lowest and highest number of siliquae were recorded in T3
(40.78) and T4 (57.11). Results have been shown in Table 4.9. When the data were computed
statistically for the aforesaid years it was found that statistically significant results were obtained
in all the years.
In 2011-12, the maximum and minimum number of seeds per siliquae was found to be in
case of T4 (22.97) and T7 (19.33) respectively. In the second experiment of 2012-13 the value
lays between T7 (19.37) and T4 (22.77). Results have been shown in Table 4.9.
Vermicompost has influenced the number of siliquaes per cluster, number of clusters per
plant, mean fruit weight and total fruit yield per plant over control according to Arancon et al.
(2006, 2008). In some earlier studies, Ali et al. (2003) observed a significant correlation between
siliquae number and yield in rapeseed. In our study, seeds per siliquae increased in a combined
dose of chemical fertilizer and vermicompost-treated plots due to the optimum moisture level of
soil for B9 compared to the control treatment which helped to produce longer siliquae, thick
siliquae and higher number of seeds (Sultana et al. 2009). The application of compost along with
biofertilizer and chemical fertilizer provided an adequate and balanced supply of nutrients
throughout their growth period, resulting in the maximum number of siliquae per plant. Our
findings corroborated the findings of Khaliq (2004).
4.4 Effective tiller/hill, panicle length and weight of ten panicles per plot of paddy
Effective tiller/hill, panicle length and weight of ten panicles of plants were recorded
from the experimental field.
The effective tiller/hill of paddy of the field experiment conducted in 2011-12 varied
between 13.22 (T1) to 18.22 (T4). In 2012-13 it varied between 14.11 (T1) to 22.11 (T4).
The panicle length of paddy varied from 19.29 (T3) to 23.76 (T4) and 20.34 (T3) to 24.29
(T4) respectively in the two experimental field trials. On the other hand, weight of ten panicles
[80]
per plot varied from 29.92 (T5) to 39.05 (T4) in 2011-12 and from 27.94 (T3) to 40.38 (T4) in
2012-13.
Reduction of chemical fertilizer to 50% significantly decreased total tiller number and
effective tiller number per hill. Application of vermicompost alone and in combination with
biofertilizer significantly increased total tiller number and effective tiller number per hill in T2
and T5 over control T1, where only chemical fertilizers were used. PSB and Azotobacter showed
significant influences on effective tiller number. Similar results with other organic materials had
also been reported by Sarwar et al. (2008) and Santai et al. (2011). De Datta (1981) documented
that rice plants require large amount nitrogen at early and mid tillering stages which promote
rapid growth, increased height and tiller number. Phosphate plays an important role to convert
tiller to effective tiller.
When the data were computed statistically for the years the results was significant.
DMRT results have been presented in Table 4.6 and 4.8 and Fig. no. 4.70, 4.71 and 4.72.
4.5 Percentage of chaffy grains per panicle, number of chaffy grains per panicle, number
of spikelets per panicle and number of filled grain per panicle of paddy
Highest and lowest % of chaffy grains per panicle was observed in T3 (34.96 and 35.23)
and T4 (17.70 and 23.51) respectively in both the years. Similar results were also observed in
case of number of chaffy grains per panicle. In case of number of spikelet’s per panicle
maximum and minimum results were observed in T4 (203.6 and 201.5) and T3 (139.9 and 153.5)
respectively in two consecutive years. Highest number of filled grain per panicle was observed
by again T4 (167.5 and 154.1) and lowest by again T3 (91.0 and 100.0) in both the years.
All the data are statistically significant and DMRT results are shown in Table 4.8, 4.10 and 4.12
and Fig. 4.73, 4.74 and 4.75.
4.6 Test weight of seeds of mustard and grains of paddy
Test weights (1000 seeds weight in case of mustard and 1000 grains weight for paddy) of
seeds and grains (g) for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 have been presented in Table 4.11 and
4.12. The highest test weight of mustard were 6.34 g (2011-12 1st exp) and 6.82 g (2012-13 2nd
exp) respectively whereas lowest test weight was shown by T7 (2.43 and 2.39 g). Highest test
weight of paddy were found in T4 (23.99 and 24.92 g) and lowest results showed by T3 (19.60
[81]
and 18.30 g). Significant difference in seed yields among the treatments was found for both the
years. DMRT tables have been presented in Tables 4.105, 4.106, 4.107 and 4.108 and Fig 4.12,
4.76.
Beneficial effect of organic matter on test weight has also been reported by Sarwar et al. (2008)
and Hossaen et al. (2011). The increase in the test weight of seeds was probably due to the
balanced supply of nutrients both from chemical fertilizer and from compost throughout the
grain filling and development period, which was in accordance with the findings of Rutanga et
al. (1998) and Ma et al. (1999).
4.7 Seed yield of mustard and grain yield of paddy
The seed yield of mustard and grain yield of paddy (t ha-1) obtained from different plots
were computed for all the field experiments (1st and 2nd experiments). It reveals from the data
that among the treatments best yield was obtained in T4 in both the experimental years and in
both the crops. The general trend of higher seed yield was that application of vermicompost
along with chemical fertilizer application showed positive role in increasing seed yield of both
the crop under such agro-climatic condition of Burdwan district, West Bengal. DMRT analyses
of data have been presented in Tables 4.13, 4.14 and Fig 4.13, 4.77.
Barik et al. (2006) reported half of the recommended dose of chemical fertilizer (NPK)
along with vermicompost at 10 t ha−1 recorded higher grain yield of rice than at full dose of
chemical fertilizer (NPK) only. Singh et al. (2005) reported that recommended N dose of rice
could be substituted up to 33% by vermicompost. Arancon et al. (2003) suggested that the
presence of plant growth influencing substances, such as plant growth hormones and humic acids
in vermicompost, is also a possible factor contributing to increased yield. Banerjee and Pramanik
(2009) reported maximum growth parameter and yield attributes of rice with the application of
PSB along with inorganic phosphate fertilizer.
4.8 Straw yield
Straw yield data (t ha-1) for 2011, 2012 and 2013 were analyzed statistically and have
been presented in Table 4.13, 4.14 and Fig 4.14, 4.78. From the results, it was found that there
was significant variation among the different treatments in three years in both the crops. In case
of mustard, the minimum and maximum straw yield were found in case of T1 (1.78 and 1.65 t ha-
[82]
1
) and T4 (2.28 and 2.47 t ha-1). In case of paddy again highest straw yield was shown by T4
(13.82 and 14.82 t ha-1).
The inoculation of mustard seeds with the biofertilizer Azotobacter and PSB along with
chemical fertilizers and vermicompost contributed significantly toward the increase in straw
yield, as was reported by El-Kased et al. (1996).
Significant difference among the different treatment combination was obtained.
4.9 Oil content of mustard
The oil content (%) was calculated in different plots of the experimental field during treatment
performance in 2011-12 and 2012-13 where different combined dose of chemical, biofertilizer
and vermicompost were applied. Data have been presented in Table 4.14. From the results it was
observed that significant differences in result were obtained in both the years. DMRT for oil
content (%) has been presented in Table 4.11 and Fig 4.15. Oil content (%) was found highest in
treatment T4 whereas lowest in Treatment T1 (full recommended dose of chemical fertilizer).
The increase in oil content of the crop plants might have been due to either the increased
vegetative growth or changes in leaf oil gland population and monoterpenes biosynthesis under
the influence of biofertilizers and vermicompost (Gharib et al. 2008).
4.10 Biomass
The plant biomass was estimated on 45DAS of crop growth for the treatment
performance of mustard in 2011-12 and 2012-13 and on 45 DAT for paddy in 2012 and 2013, for
screening of best combined dose of chemical fertilizer, vermicompost and biofertilizer. All the
results have been presented in Table 4.3, 4.4 and Fig. 4.3, 4.4, 4.68, 4.69.
Abo-EI-Gound (2000), El-Zeiny et al. (2001) and Kandil et al. (2004) reported that
biofertilizer (Rizobacterin) improve plant growth characters like number of leaves plant-1, leaf
area, vegetative fresh and dry weight, LAI, CGR and NAR. They concluded that biofertilizer is a
biological technique for reducing the dose of mineral fertilizer.
In the first experiment of mustard in 2011-12, under treatment performance the lowest
biomass (10.86 g) was recorded in T3 and highest biomass (26.72 g) in T4. In the second
experiment of 2012-13, the lowest value (2.93 g) noted in again T3 and highest value (5.26 g) in
T4 .
[83]
In case of paddy the first experiment of 2012 showed, the lowest value (33.71 g) noted in
T3 and highest value (49.03 g) in T4. In 2013, the value lies between 30.24 g (T1) and 50.52 g
(T4). In all the years of experiments significant differences were observed.
Therefore, this type of agricultural practices will lead to the higher quantity of seed yield
as well as eco-friendly application of chemical fertilizer will lead to the reduction of pollution in
the agricultural field along with economic benefit to the farmers community as less amount of
chemical fertilizer will be required for the sustainable production of the particular screened
mustard variety (B9) under such agroclimatic zone of old alluvial soil in Burdwan District of
West Bengal.
Ayneabeba et al. (2001) noted that shoot length, shoot dry weight and nodule fresh
weight were significantly affected by soil type under different inoculation and fertilizer treatment
in faba bean production at Ethiopia.
Sprenat (1990) found that solubilization of mineral nutrients synthesis of vitamins, amino
acids, auxins and gibberellins, which stimulate plant growth, comes as result of inoculation by
Azotobacter sp. in non-legume crop species.
4.11 Leaf Area Index (LAI) of mustard and paddy
In this studies leaf area index was estimated during treatment screening of 2011, 2012
and 2013 with combined dose of biofertiizer, vermicompost and chemical fertilizer. In all cases
LAI was estimated at three stages of crop growth i.e., 30 DAS, 45 DAS and 60 DAS. Maximum
LAI value was observed on 45 DAS for both the crops. In 2011-12 first experiment of mustard,
on 45 DAS among the different treatments T1 (i.e., full recommended dose of chemical fertilizer)
showed the minimum LAI (1.59) and T4 (i.e., 25% reduction of chemical fertilizer combined
with vermicompost) showed the highest LAI value (4.32). In second year experiment 2012-13
also showed same results. T1 showed lowest value (6.68) and T4 showed highest value (9.48).
On 45 DAT of first experiment in 2012 of paddy, the minimum LAI value was noted
again in T1 (39.85) and maximum in T4 (64.42) while on 2012-13 it was lowest in T3 (35.04) and
maximum in T4 (54.83).
When data were analyzed statistically for treatment analysis of it was observed that all
the three stages of crop growth showed critical difference among the varieties and also there was
[84]
coefficient of variation among the treatments. DMRT analyses of data have been presented in
Tables 4.1, 4.2 and Fig 4.17, 4.81.
Such increase in LAI value have been reported by Nuruzzaman et al. (2003) on the basis
of their experiment conducted at agricultural farm of Bangladesh Agricultural University with
Okra under chemical fertilizer + bacterial fertilizer application. Greater light interception by the
T4 treated plants lead toward higher rate of photosynthesis which contributed significantly
toward the vegetative growth of crop plants of B9 variety leading to higher LAI value. These
findings are in line with some earlier findings in case of soybean crop (Aduloju et al. 2009).
With maturity of crop growth, LAI increased due to newly emerged leaves and then LAI
decreased gradually due to leaf senescence toward the maturity of the crop. Kar et al. (1989)
reported similar results in their study. On the other side LAI values were increased toward the
stimulating effect of biofertilizer application which improved the availability of nutrients and
their uptake by crop plants. Stimulating effects of biofertilizer application also increased greater
amount of light interception by the crop plants which have contributed toward the vegetative
growth of crop plants under all treatments (Aduloju et al. 2009).
4.12 Leaf Area Ratio (LAR) of mustard and paddy
LAR indicates how a system is efficient in growth and in broad sense LAR represents the
ratio of photosynthesizing to respiring material within the plant. In the present investigation,
LAR value was calculated during treatment screening of different combined doses of
vermicompost, chemical and biofertilizer on mustard and paddy. LAR value was studied on 45
DAS it varied between 6.68 m2g-1 in T1 and 9.48 m2g-1 in T4. In 2012-13 results showed on 45
DAS it varied between 4.01 m2g-1 in T2 and 10.11 m2g-1 in T4. The results showed significant
difference. It clearly indicated that the different treatments showed difference in their metabolic
process as has been reflected in their LAR values.
In the first experiment of paddy on 2012 conducted with different combined dose of
vermicompost, chemical and biofertilizer, the LAR value on 45 DAT, it varied between 0.006
m2g-1 (T5 and T6) and 0.012 m2g-1 in T4. In the second experiment of 2013, the LAR value on 45
DAT, it varied between 0.003 m2g-1 (T5) and 0.008 m2g-1 (T1). Statistically significant result was
obtained in this experiment, which indicated that combined dose of fertilizers influenced
significant difference on LAR value i.e., on metabolic process of paddy.
[85]
LAR indicates how a system is efficient in growth and in broad sense it reflects the ratio
of photosynthesizing to respiring material within the plant. Maximum LAR values means
maximum biomass were deposited in the shoot and branches of the studied mustard and paddy
variety of this investigation (Banerjee et al. 2011).
Therefore, maximum biomass was deposited in the shoot and branches of the tried
mustard and paddy variety of this investigation. DMRT results have been presented in Tables
4.17, 4.18 and Fig 4.18, 4.82.
4.13 Leaf Area Duration (LAD) of mustard and paddy
Watson (1947) defined LAD as a measure of the ability of plant to produce and maintain
leaf area and its whole opportunity for assimilation. When LAD values of crop growth on 60-45
DAS was computed from the experimental data of 2011, 2012 and 2013, it was found that 6.79
days (T1) and 11.46 days (T4) in 2011-12 and the minimum and maximum values on 60-45DAS
i.e., at the second stages of crop growth were 5.99 days (T5) and 10.91 days (T4) respectively.
In the first experiment of paddy in 2012 the minimum and maximum values on 60-
45DAS i.e., at second stages of crop growth were 84.3 days (T1) and 133.9 days (T4)
respectively. In 2013, it was 46.84 days (T5) and 78.87 days (T4) respectively. Statistical
calculation of the data on LAD during 2011, 2012 and 2013 showed clear difference of LAD
value among the treatments; along with best screened combined dose of chemical and
biofertilizer and vermicompost.
LAD can be defined as a measure of the ability of plant to produce and maintain leaf area
and its whole opportunity for assimilation (Watson, 1947). Highest value of LAD in later stage
of the crops maturity means the treatment performance and application of different combination
of biofertilizer, chemical fertilizers and vermicompost significantly affected the crop growth rate
by different treatments at two successive seasons. The enhanced rate of LAD on 30–45 DAS to
45–60 DAS may be attributed toward higher rate of dry matter accumulation by the crop plants
under various treatments of biofertilizer, vermicompost and chemical fertilizer at both the
seasons.
The DMRT analyses have been presented in Tables 4.17, 4.18 and 4.19, 4.83.
[86]
4.14 Crop Growth Rate (CGR) of mustard and paddy
In 2011-12 of mustard, CGR value varies between 3.88 gm-2day-1 (T3) to 10.54 gm-2day-1
(T4) in the second phase (45-60 DAS) of crop growth; in the second experiment of 2012-13, the
value at second phase (45-60 DAS) lies between 5.06 gm-2day-1(T1) and 10.49 gm-2day-1 (T4).
In case of paddy on 2012, the minimum and maximum CGR values at second stage was
11.8gm-2day-1 (T5) and 16.68 gm-2day-1 (T1). In 2013 values lies between 1.74 (T1 and T7) to
15.48 (T4). All the results were statistically significant. The results and DMRT values have been
presented in Tables 4.17, 4.18 and Fig. 4.20, 4.84 respectively.
Rate of dry matter production is a very important parameter when we will consider to
agricultural productivity and to evaluate that, CGR is a simple and important index. When LAI is
large to intercept 95% of sunlight then plant get optimum crop growth rate and also greater light
interception stimulates CGR which in turn increases total dry matter and LAI. Greater LAI
causes higher light interception which further enhances CGR and thus results in higher yield
(Datta et al. 2012). there is a steady increase in NAR value at the later stages of crop
development which may be attributed toward higher nutrient availability to crop plants in the
presence of vermicompost, biofertilizer and chemical fertilizer which caused more cell
elongation ,shoot and root development which lead to the progressive development of the CGR
and NAR. Our findings corroborate the finding of Shukla and Warsi (2000).
4.15 Net Assimilation Rate (NAR) of mustard and paddy
The evaluation of NAR under field condition has been evaluated during 2011, 2012 and
2013. Results and DMRT tables have been presented in Tables 4.19, 4.20 and Fig. 4.21, 4.85
respectively.
In 2011-12 for mustard, in the second phase (45-60 DAS) the minimum and maximum
values were 0.32 g-2day-1(T1) and 2.41 gm-2day-1 (T4). In the second experiment of mustard on
2012-13 the NAR values at the second phase, the NAR values lies between 0.09 g-2day-1(T3) and
0.21 gm-2day-1 (T4).
In case of paddy, in 2012, at the second stages of crop growth minimum and maximum
results were shown by 0.96 (T3) and 3.49 (T4). In 2013, the minimum and maximum value of
[87]
NAR was 0.39 gm-2day-1 (T7) and 3.84 gm-2day-1 (T4) in second phase. All the results are
statistically significant.
NAR is related to photosynthetic activities of leaf, i.e., rate of increase in dry weight of
whole plant per unit leaf area. There is a considerable amount of variation in the NAR values of
the seven applied treatments in the later stages of crop growth which may be due to the
formation of siliquae that led to differential rate of supply of photo assimilate. During the
siliquae formation stage, the rate of photosynthesis in leaves decreases and siliquae increases
(Chango and Velly, 2001). Our findings corroborates with some earlier workers (Miri, 2007).
Variations in the NAR value may be attributed toward the formation of siliquae that led to
differential rate of supply of photo assimilate for siliquae and seed formation and development of
crop plants. During siliquae formation stage, the rate of photosynthesis in leaves decreases and in
siliquae increases as reported by Chango and Velly (2001). These results are in conformity with
the experimental results of Miri (2007).
4.16 Relative growth rate of mustard and paddy
In 2011-12 of mustard, RGR value varies between 0.03 gm-2day-1 (T3) to 0.09 gm-2day-1
(T4) in the second phase (45-60 DAS) of crop growth; in the second experiment of 2012-13, the
value at second phase (45-60 DAS) lies between 0.05 gm-2day-1(T1) and 0.13 gm-2day-1 (T4).
In case of paddy, in 2012, the minimum and maximum RGR values at second phase were
noted 0.007 gm-2day-1 (T3 and T4) and 0.01 gm-2day-1 (T1) respectively. In 2013, in second phase
values lies between 0.002 (T7) to 0.015 (T4). All the results were statistically significant. The
results and DMRT values have been presented in tables 4.19, 4.20 and Fig. 4.22, 4.86
respectively.
4.17 Harvest Index (HI) of mustard and paddy
In the year 2011-12 of mustard, the harvest index value lies between 54.25 (T7) and 71.27
(T4). In the second experiment of mustard of 2012-13, the harvest index value lies between 57.92
(T2) and 113.27 (T4) whereas in case of paddy of 2012 the value lies between 34.76 (T3) and
45.44 (T4). In the second experiment of paddy in 2013, the harvest index value lies between
37.01 (T1) and 45.11 (T4). All the results were statistically significant. The results and DMRT
analysis have been presented in Table 4.13, 4.14 and Fig 4.16, 4.80.
[88]
Harvest index (HI) refers to the percent ratio of economic and biological yield of a crop.
In the current investigation there is considerable variation in the harvest index value among the
seven applied treatment combinations. This is due to variable rate of translocation of assimilate
toward grain development leading to variability in yield and HI value among the seven applied
treatments (Terao et al., 1997). Significant value of harvest index may be attributed toward the
variable rate of translocation of assimilate toward grain development leading to variability in
harvest index value.
4.18 Total chlorophyll content and photosynthetic rate in physiologically active leaf of
mustard and paddy
Estimation of total chlorophyll and photosynthetic rate in physiologically active leaves on

45 DAS was performed during 2011, 2012 and 2013 on mustard and paddy. In 2011-12 on
mustard, minimum and maximum total chlorophyll levels and photosynthetic rate were observed
in T2 (1.26 mg g-1 fw) and T4 (3.26 mg g-1 fw) and T1 (19.15 µ mol m-2 s-1) and T4 (24.03 µ mol
m-2 s-1) respectively. In the second experiment of mustard in 2012-13, the minimum and
maximum total chlorophyll levels and photosynthetic rate were observed in T5 (1.39 mg g-1 fw)
and T4 (1.92 mg g-1 fw) and in T1 (22.58 µ mol m-2 s-1) and T4 (25.38 µ mol m-2 s-1).
In case of paddy, the first experiment of 2012, the minimum and maximum level of total
chlorophyll were recorded in T3 (2.28 mg g-1fw) and T4 (4.3 mg g-1 fw) and photosynthetic rate
was T1 (24.9 µ mol m-2 s-1) and T4 (30.97 µ mol m-2 s-1). In 2013, the minimum and maximum
level of total chlorophyll and photosynthetic rate was observed in 3.05 mg g-1 fw (T3) and 5.36
mg g-1 fw (T4) and in T3 (27.06 µ mol m-2 s-1) and T4 (31.04 µ mol m-2 s-1). Significant difference
in the level of total chlorophyll was observed among the different treatments taken for the field
screening of mustard.
The productivity of any crops depends on the process of photosynthesis, which in turn
depends on the chlorophyll content of leaves in plants (Shah, 1959). The significant variation in
the level of total chlorophyll content in physiologically active leaves of mustard may be due to
variable rate of biosynthesis of chlorophyll and photosynthesis depending upon the genetic
potential of the mustard against different treatment combination. Significant enhancement in
total chlorophyll content in leaves of all the treatments with respect to control (T1) may be due to
increased uptake of magnesium from the soil in the form of Mg+2 under the influence of
[89]
biofertilizer application and also the beneficial effects of bacterial inoculation on increased
chlorophyll content due to higher availability of nitrogen to the growing tissue and organs
supplied by nitrogen fixing Azotobacter sp. Our results also confirmed the earlier findings of
Chandrasekhar et al., (2005). Total chlorophyll increased in T4 treatment than the recommended
dose and other treatment combinations which might be due to significant influence of
microorganisms as biofertilizer of producing growth promoting substances resulting in more
efficient absorption of nutrients through which main components of photosynthetic pigments and
consequently the chlorophyll content was increased.
The results with DMRT have been presented in Table 4.21, 4.22 and Fig. 4.23, 4.24,
4.87, 4.88.
4.19 Total soluble sugar content in physiologically active leaf of mustard and paddy
Estimation of total soluble sugar on 45 DAS was observed in physiologically active

leaves of mustard and paddy crop grown under field condition during 2011, 2012 and 2013
respectively. The minimum and maximum value in 2011-12 on mustard were in T1 (6.52 mg g-1)
and T4 (13.71 mg g-1) respectively. In the second experiment of 2012-13 on mustard, the
minimum value was recorded in case of T1 (4.93 mg g-1) and maximum in T4 (16.32 mg g-1).
In the first experiment of paddy on 2012, the minimum and maximum value of total
soluble sugar were recorded in T3 (7.73 mg g-1) and T4 (16.17 mg g-1). In 2013, the minimum and
maximum value were recorded in T3 (9.61 mg g-1) and T4 (17.28 mg g-1). The sugar content in
leaves increased over control treatments in all the experiments.
Significant level of variation in total soluble sugar content in leaves among the different
varieties may be attributed towards the variable rate of photosynthesis leading to production of
variable amount of photosynthate among the different varieties. Higher biosynthesis of
chlorophyll and photosynthesis in flag leaf of plants under the biofertilizer treated plots might
have resulted towards higher level of total soluble sugar content of leaves. The results also reveal
that dual inoculation of biofertilizers have pronounced influence on biosynthesis of
carbohydrates in leaves (Rao et al. 2007). Improved level of sugar in the leaves of crop plants
under vermicompost treatments can be attributed towards the combined application of
biofertilizer and vermicompost which may have stimulated the rate of photosynthesis leading to
higher rate of production of photosynthate in the leaves along with adequate supply of nutrients.
[90]
Our findings were similar with the earlier findings on Siderites montana (El-Sherbeny et al.
2005) and on Iris (Ali, 2005). These improved level of sugar changes are of particular
importance because of their direct relationship with such physiological processes as
photosynthesis, translocation and respiration. The sugar content in leaves increased up to 25% of
reduced dose of nitrogenous chemical fertilizer and then decreased further with gradual
increment of reduction of nitrogen fertilizer dose which may be attributed towards higher rate of
translocation of sugar transported from leaves to flowering parts and its subsequent utilization
for the development of seeds (Chandrasekar, 2005) under reduced supply of nitrogen to crop
plants. This therefore, indicates the role of nitrogen towards biosynthesis and accumulation of
sugar in crop plants. Similar findings were reported by Setua et al. (2005) in mulberry leaves.
In all the experimental years, statistically significant results were observed. DMRT
values have been presented in Tables 4.23, 4.24 and Fig. 4.25, 4.89.
4.20 Proline content in physiologically active leaf of mustard and paddy
In mustard on 45 DAS during 2011-12, minimum amount of proline was 0.114 mg g-1
(T6) and maximum amount was 0.939 mg g-1 (T7). In 2012-13, the value of proline lies between
0.139 mg g-1 (T6) and 0.942 mg g-1 (T2) whereas in case of paddy, the first experiment of the
2012, the value lies between 0.049 mg g-1 (T4) and 0.271 mg g-1 (T1). In 2013, the proline
content in physiologically active leaf ranges between 0.04 mg g-1 (T4) and 0.297 mg g-1 (T1).
Proline content in leaves of the different studied treatments of mustard reflects the
differential response to the seven treatments for mustard towards environmental stress and
different level of osmotic adjustment (Ozturk and Demir, 2002). Vermicompost in combination
with chemical fertilizers showed differential biochemical response in terms of osmotic balance of
the crop plants resulting into significant variation in the level of proline in leaves. Application of
full dose of chemical fertilizer stimulated the accumulation of proline in leaves of mustard and
therefore, reflects the osmotic adjustment of crop plants. Similar findings were observed by
Banerjee et al. (2012). Osmoregulation has been known to be associated with maintenance of
leaf area water extraction due to root growth, continued photosynthesis and diversion of
assimilates towards sink (Wright et al. 1983).
All the results were statistically significant. DMRT values have been presented in Tables
4.23, 4.24 and Fig. 4.26, 4.90.
[91]
4.21 Bacterial population (CFU g-1) of soil (Before land preparation for seed sowing and
The standard plate count number of bacterial population was undertaken in all the years
of experiment before land preparation for sowing and after harvesting of crop. In 2011-12 of
mustard, the lower number (60.2 × 10-5) of bacterial population were noted in T7 and maximum
(65.5 × 10-5) in T4 before land preparation for sowing of seeds. After harvesting of crop, the soil
sample showed minimum (68 × 10-5) in T1 and maximum bacterial population (130.67 × 10-5) in
T6. In the second field experiment of 2012-13 for mustard, the minimum number of bacterial
population (50.27 × 10-5) was in T1 and maximum in T4 (73.27 × 10-5) before land preparation
for sowing of seeds in the field. After harvesting of crop, the minimum (58 × 10-5) was in T1 and
maximum (129.33 × 10-5) population in T6. The results indicate that with the gradual increase in
the dose of biofertilizer along with the reduced dose of chemical fertilizer have contributed
significantly towards the increase in the bacterial population in the soil after harvesting than
before land preparation for sowing of seeds.
In the first field experiment of 2012 for paddy, the standard plate count number of
bacterial population lies between 27.97 × 10-5 (T6) and 39.07 × 10-5 (T2) before land preparation
for sowing of seeds and between 70.7 × 10-5 (T1) and 121.9 × 10-5 (T4) after harvesting of crop.
In 2013, before land preparation for sowing of seeds the minimum value 28.67 × 10-5 was noted
in T2 and maximum in T3 (39.0 × 10-5). After harvesting of crop minimum and maximum value
were recorded in T1 (51.73 × 10-5) and T4 (134.67 × 10-5).
From the observation it is clear that reduced dose of chemical fertilizer along with
increasing dose of biofertilizer and vermicompost have resulted into higher standard plate count
value of bacterial population in the soil after harvesting of crop than before land preparation for
sowing of seeds. Similar was the case where different doses of compost along with biofertilizer
inoculation were applied. This indicated that chemical fertilizer at the recommended dose was
not congenial for growth of bacteria whereas its reduced dose along with seed inoculated
biofertilizer resulted into more growth of bacterial population under such investigations. In all
the years the data analysis showed significant differences. All the data with DMRT have been
presented in Table 4.25, 4.26 and Fig. 4.27, 4.28, 4.105, 4.106.
[92]
4.22 Fungal population (CFU g-1) of soil (Before sowing and after harvesting)
The standard plate count of fungal species population were undertaken in soils for all the
years of field experiment before land preparation for sowing and after harvesting of crop. The
data have been presented in Table 4.27, 4.28 and 4.29, 4.30, 4.107, 4.108.
From the results it was found that the fungal diversity in the soil samples increased in
soils after harvesting with respect to the soil samples before land preparation for seed sowing all
in case of the treatment trials. This was clearly indicated that there was gradual increase in the
soil fungal population and diversity in soil samples after harvesting with respect to soil samples
before land preparation for sowing. This observation therefore suggests that application of
biofertilizer and vermicompost into the soil along with chemical fertilizer contributes
significantly towards the increase in fungal population in the soil.
4.23 Temperature (° C) of the experimental soil (before land preparation for sowing of
seeds and after harvesting of crop) of mustard and paddy
Soil temperature were measured both before land preparation for sowing of seeds and
after harvesting of crops in the field for cropping season of 2011, 2012 and 2013.
In 2011-12, the temperature before sowing of seeds of mustard in the field varied
between 22.53°C (T6) and 24.43°C (T4) and after harvesting of crop the value varied between
35.47°C (T3) and 38.13°C (T4). In the second experiment of 2012-13, the value lies between
20.37°C (T3) and 24.23°C (T2) before land preparation for sowing of seeds and between 35.63°C
(T3) and 38.83°C (T4) after harvesting of crops.
First experiment of paddy in 2012 showed temperature varied between 37.73°C (T5) and
41.33°C (T3) before land preparation and from 33.97°C (T4) and 36.87°C (T1 and T5).The results
showed significant difference after harvesting of crops. In 2013, second experiment of paddy
showed the temperature varies between 39.03°C (T2) and 41.13°C (T6) before land preparation
and 34.63°C (T4) and 37.27°C (T1) after harvesting of crops. The results were significant both
before and after harvesting of crops. All the results with DMRT have been tabulated in Tables
4.29, 4.30 Fig. 4.43, 4.44, 4.103, 4.104.
[93]
4.24 Moisture Content (%) of the experimental soil (before land preparation for seed
Moisture content (%) value of mustard cultivated soil in 2011-12 before sowing of seeds
varied between 6.36% (T3) and 7.48% (T4) and after harvesting of crops varies between 8.33%
(T3) and 10.62% (T4).
In case of second experiment of 2012-13 the value lays between 2.23% (T5) and 4.53%
(T4) before sowing of seeds and 8.14% (T6) and 11.35% (T4) after harvesting of crops. In the first
experiment of paddy in 2012 the value lies between 3.04% (T7) and 6.43% (T4) before sowing of
crop and after harvesting of crops results ranged between 5.12 (T5) to 8.23 (T4). In 2013, before
plantation of crop the moisture content in soil varies between 7.15% (T1) and 7.81% (T6) and
after harvesting of crops the value lies between 8.11% (T1) and 10.56% (T4). The results were
significant both before sowing and after harvesting of crops. Results have been tabulated in the
Table 4.35 and Fig.4.33, 4.34, 4.91, 4.92.
Moisture content (%) of soil samples increased after harvesting of crops more than before
sowing in both the years and significant changes were found. Again treatment T4 showed highest
result. The balanced dose of NPK fertilizer (recommended dose) and the application of
biofertilizer and vermicompost for both the experimental period may have contributed
significantly toward the accumulation of organic matter resulting in improved aggregation and
favorable pore geometry in the soil. The results of the present investigation are in agreement with
the findings of Biswas et al. (1971).
4.25 Specific gravity (g/cc), Bulk density (g/cc) and Particle density (g/cc) of soil (Before
land preparation for sowing and after harvesting of crop)
Assessment of specific gravity, bulk density and particle density of soil before land
preparation for seed sowing and after harvesting of crops were undertaken in the experimental
field with the soil of 2011, 2012 and 2013. In 2011-12 of mustard, the lowest and highest
specific gravity were observed in T3 (1.26 g/cc) and highest in T4 and T6 (1.38 g/cc) before land
preparation for sowing of seeds. After harvesting of crops the lowest value was recorded in T1
(1.20 g/cc) and highest in T6 and T4 (1.40 g/cc). In the 2nd experiment of mustard in 2012-13, the
lowest and highest specific gravity were observed in T2 (1.08 g/cc) and T3 (1.23 g/cc) before land
preparation for sowing of seeds and highest value were recorded in T4 (1.54 g/cc) after
[94]
harvesting of crops. In the 1st field experiment of paddy in 2012, before land preparation for
sowing of seeds the lowest and highest value were recorded in case of T3 and T5 (1.09 g/cc) and
T4 (1.44 g/cc) and after harvesting of crops the value lies between T5 (1.12 g/cc) and T4 (1.49
g/cc) respectively. In 2013, the lowest and highest specific gravity value of soil before land
preparation for transplantation of paddy seedlings were found to be in T1 (1.28 g/cc) and T4 (1.36
g/cc) and after harvesting of crops the value lies between 1.31 g/cc (T1) and 1.40 g/cc (T4).
Results have been presented in Table 4.29, 4.30 and Fig. 4.31, 4.32, 4.101, 4.102. When the data
were computed for aforesaid years it was found that significantly different results were obtained.
Bulk density of soil was computed for three consecutive years of 2011, 2012 and 2013. In
2011-12, the value varied between 1.11 g/cc (T1) and 1.31 g/cc (T4) before land preparation for
sowing of seeds and 0.78 g/cc (T7) and 0.83 g/cc (T2) after harvesting of crop. During the second
experiment of 2012-13, the value varied between 1.32 g/cc (T5) and 1.65 g/cc (T4) before land
preparation for sowing of seeds and 0.54 g/cc (T5 and T7) and 0.73 g/cc (T1) after harvesting of
crop. In the first experiment of paddy in 2012, the value varied between 1.01 g/cc (T3) and 1.10
g/cc (T5) before sowing of seeds and 0.61 g/cc (T3 and T7) and 0.71 g/cc (T4) after harvesting of
crop. In 2013, before land preparation for sowing of seeds the value lies between 1.04 g/cc (T6)
and 1.12 g/cc (T1 and T3) and between 0.56 g/cc (T2) and 0.77 g/cc (T1) after harvesting of crop.
Statistically significant results were found in all cases. The DMRT results have been presented in
Tables 4.31, 4.32 and Fig. 4.35, 4.36, 4.93, 4.94.
When the particle density (g/cc) were computed in 2011-12, the highest and lowest value
were found to be 2.21 g/cc (T4 and T7) and 2.50 g/cc (T6) respectively before land preparation for
sowing of seeds and varied between 1.83 g/cc (T3) and 2.16g/cc (T4) after harvesting of crop. In
2012-13, the value lies between 2.34 g/cc (T3) and 2.58 g/cc (T4) before sowing of seeds and
1.95 g/cc (T1) to 2.15 g/cc (T4) after harvesting of crop during the field experiment of mustard
with combined dose of biofertilizer, vermicompost and chemical fertilizer. In the field
experiment of paddy in 2012, the soil particle density varied between 2.09 g/cc (T7) and 2.55
g/cc (T3) before land preparation for plantation of seedlings and 1.99 g/cc (T7) and 2.53 g/cc (T4)
after harvesting of crop. When the data for 2013 were computed the lowest and highest value
were recorded as 2.18 g/cc (T1) and 2.29 g/cc (T7) before land preparation for sowing of seeds
and 2.15 g/cc (T1) and 2.27 g/cc (T3 and T7) after harvesting of crop. Results have been shown in
Table 4.31, 4.32 and Fig. 4.37, 4.38, 4.95, 4.96. When the data were computed statistically for
[95]
aforesaid years it was found that the results were significant for all the years both before land
preparation for sowing of seeds and after harvesting of crops.
The addition of organic manure destroyed the development of hardpan in soil thus
lowering the bulk density as was reported by Bavaskar & Zende (1973). It also may be attributed
to better aggregation and decreased bulk density under the influence of high organic matter
addition leading to development of crumb structure with high soil porosity and better aeration.
The results of the present investigation are in agreement with the findings of Biswas et al.
(1971). The particle density (g/cc) of soil reduced significantly (P ≤ 0.05) in all the treatments
after harvesting the crop in comparison to before sowing which might be due to higher levels of
organic matter present in the soil after harvesting, contributing significantly toward the reduction
of particle density values.
4.26 Porosity (%) and water holding capacity (%) of soil (Before land preparation for
Porosity and WHC of soil samples both before sowing and after harvesting of crop were
analyzed for all the years cropping seasons of 2011, 2012 and 2013.
When data were computed, there was an increasing trend in porosity and WHC value in
soil samples after harvesting in comparison to soil taken before land preparation for seed sowing
which indicates that combined application of biofertilizer, vermicompost and chemical fertilizer
have contributed significantly towards increase in the porosity and WHC value. The maximum
increase of the porosity and WHC value might be attributed to the simulative action of compost
on native earthworms which might have had a build-up of worm population, leading to increases
in the soil macro pores through their burrowing action. The results of the present investigation
are in agreement with the findings of Reddy & Reddy (1998).
All the data have been presented in Table 4.33, 4.34 and Fig. 4.39, 4.40, 4.97, 4.98 and
4.41, 4.42, 4.99, 4.100. When the data was computed statistically for the three years significant
results were found in soil samples after harvesting of crops.
[96]
4.27 pH of the experimental soil (before land preparation for seed sowing and after
harvesting of crop)
Soil samples were analyzed for pH studies before preparation of field and after harvesting
of crops in the experimental field during 2011, 2012 and 2013 reveals that in case of mustard
crop the pH of the soil in 2011-12 before sowing lies between 5.96 (T3) and 6.26 (T6 and T7) and
after harvesting the minimum value obtained was 6.06 (T1 and T3) and maximum was 6.30 (T7).
In all cases the pH value rises up after harvesting of crops. There was significant difference in
pH values before sowing of seeds and after harvesting of crops. In 2012-13, in the second
experiment of mustard the minimum pH value was obtained in T6 (5.13) and maximum in T4
(5.91) and after harvesting the value lies between 6.10 (T3) and 6.32 (T6).
In the first experiment of paddy on 2012, pH value decreased in the soil taken from the
field after harvesting of crop. Such effect of decrease in soil pH in the soil analyzed after the
harvesting of crop might be due to the effect of combined dose of application of bio-fertilizer and
chemical fertilizer in the various treatments. Before land preparation the minimum and
maximum value was reported in 6.50 (T4) and 7.20 (T3). After harvesting of crop, the minimum
and maximum values were 6.21 (T4) and 6.65 (T3). In the second experiment of paddy, all the
treatments showed decreased trend of pH value like the first experiment of 2012. For both the
experiments statistically significant difference among the various treatments were obtained in
case of soils from the plots after harvesting of crop. The minimum and maximum values before
sowing of seeds were 6.43 (T1) and 7.02 (T7) and after harvesting of crop the pH values ranged
between 6.15 (T4) and 6.47 (T1) i.e., showed an increasing trend after harvesting of crop
compared to before land preparation.
The soil data of 2011, 2012 and 2013 with DMRT have been presented in Table 4.36,
4.37 and Fig. 4.47, 4.48, 4.111, 4.112.
Atiyeh et al. (2001) reported that the increase of vermicompost rate in the soil resulted in
the decrease in soil pH. The production of NH4+, CO2 and organic acids during microbial
metabolism in vermicompost may be contributed to the decrease in soil pH (Albanell et al.
1988).
[97]
4.28 Electrical conductivity (EC) of the experimental soil (before land preparation for seed
Electrical Conductivity (EC) of soil was measured before preparation of field and after
harvesting of crop during 2011, 2012 and 2013 to assess the EC level during the treatment
performance of crop under such agro-climatic condition of old alluvial soil to assess the soil
condition in relation to EC in the field under different treatment combinations of vermicompost,
chemical and bio-fertilizer. All the data of EC with DMRT value during the years 2011, 2012
and 2013 have been presented in Table 4.36, 4.37 and Fig. 4.45, 4.46, 4.109, 4.110. The general
trend of EC showed an increasing trend from before seed sowing to after harvesting of field.
There were significant differences in the level of EC in soil taken from the treatment
performance.
The soils amended with vermicompost and biofertilizer along with chemical fertilizer had
significantly (P ≤ 0.05) higher electrical conductivity (EC) among which T4 showed highest EC
in both the experiments. The soil EC increased with increasing an application rate of
vermicompost in soil as reported by Atiyeh et al. (2001) with pig manure vermicompost. The EC
of vermicompost depends on the raw materials used for vermicomposting and their ion
concentration (Atiyeh et al. 2002b). A progressive increase in the level of EC in all treatments
which may be attributed to the combined effect of vermicompost and chemical fertilizer which
have contributed significantly to the increase in buffering capacity of the soil. The decomposition
of organic materials released acids or acid forming compounds that reacted with the sparingly
soluble salts already present in the soil and either converted them into soluble salts or at least
increased their solubility, thus, increasing the conductivity value. The results of the present
investigation are in agreement with the findings of Khiani & Moore (1984).
4.29 Organic Carbon (%) of the experimental soil (before land preparation for seed
In 2011-12 of mustard, the organic carbon level before preparation of field lies between
0.54% (T1) and 0.70 (T6) and after harvesting of crop the soil organic carbon content varies
between 1.9% (T1) and 2.79% (T4). In both the cases significant differences in the organic carbon
level of soil organic carbon % were observed.nIn 2012-13 of mustard, the OC level in soil before
preparation of field lies between 0.64% (T1 and T3) and 0.86% (T6). After harvesting of crop the
[98]
value obtained for OC level in the soil lies between 2.83% (T1) and 2.96% (T4). Statistically
significant differences were observed among various treatments.
In the second experiment i.e. paddy in 2012, the OC level in soil before sowing of seed
lies between 0.48% (T5) and 0.63% (T2). After harvesting of crop the value obtained for OC
level in the soil lies between 2.91% (T3) and 3.30% (T4). Statistically significant differences
were observed among various treatments after harvesting of crops. In 2013, the tabulated result
showed the value of OC level before land preparation were 1.44% (T1) and 1.61% (T4) and after
harvesting of crops the organic carbon lies between 3.13% (T3 and T7) and 3.24% (T4).
Statistically significant results were obtained with respect to soil samples both before land
preparation and after harvesting of crops.
The results with DMRT have been presented in Table 4.40, 4.41 and Fig. 4.55, 4.56,
4.119, 4.120.
The gradual build-up of soil organic carbon status may be attributed due to the
application of vermicompost along with biofertilizer and chemical fertilizer. Under the influence
of biofertilizer, decomposition of complex organic matter in compost and subsequent conversion
to mineralized organic colloids took place, which was added to the soil organic carbon pool. The
results of the present investigation are in agreement with the findings of Ramaswami & Son
(1997).
4.30 Available nitrogen of the experimental soil (before land preparation for seed sowing
and after harvesting of crop)
The available nitrogen content of soil before land preparation and after harvesting of crop
in 2011, 2012 and 2013 have been presented in Table 4.42 and Fig. 4.49, 4.50, 4.113, 4.114.
The trend of nitrogen content was more in the soil taken after harvesting of crop as
compared to the nitrogen content in soil before land preparation. In the first experiment of 2011-
12 of mustard, values ranged between 202.3 mg kg-1 (T1) to 222.9 mg kg-1 (T4) and in 2012-13, it
was ranged between 256.1 mg kg-1 (T1) to 272.2 mg kg-1 (T6) before cultivation. But after
harvesting it was between 219.5 mg kg-1 (T1) to 291.5 mg kg-1 (T4) and 280.7 mg kg-1 (T1) to
314.4 mg kg-1 (T4) respectively in two consecutive experimental years.
[99]
In case of paddy on 2012, there was also increasing trend in available nitrogen content in
soil after harvesting of crop than in the soil before land preparation. In both the experiments of
2012 and 2013, this was noticed. In the first experiment of 2012, values ranged between 187.8
mg kg-1 (T3) to 198.5 mg kg-1 (T4) and in 2013, it was ranged between 215.8 mg kg-1 (T2) to
224.8 mg kg-1 (T4) in before cultivation. But after harvesting it was between 273.9 mg kg-1 (T1)
to 295.4 mg kg-1 (T4) and 273.1 mg kg-1 (T5) to 318.3 mg kg-1 (T4) respectively in two
consecutive experimental years.
The available nitrogen content in soil increased after application of biofertilizer and
compost which may be due to asymbiotic nitrogen fixation inoculated by Azotobacter sp. as well
as inherent nitrogen content of the compost may have contributed to soil nitrogen pool after
application. Vermicompost might have produced more residual N in soil than those in control
plots. The marked decrease in available N in control soil in comparison with vermicompost
treated soils may have been due to larger amounts of total C and N in vermicompost that could
have provided a larger source of N for mineralization (Arancon et al. 2006). There have been
other reports of increase of N in soil after application of vermicompost (Nethra et al. 1999). The
results of the available nitrogen was higher in soil after harvesting of crop than before sowing
due to positive interaction between the applied biofertilizers (Azotobacter, Phosphobacter) and
the soil components, as well as biological fixation of atmospheric nitrogen by bacterial fertilizers
on one hand and continuous release of nutrients from the applied compost on the other hand. The
results of the present investigation are in agreement with the findings of Das et al. (2008) (Table
4).
There was significant difference in nitrogen level among the various treatments both
before sowing and after harvesting of crops. The DMRT results have been presented in Tables
4.38, 4.39 and Fig. 4.49, 4.50, 4.113, 4.114.
4.31 Available potassium of the experimental soil (before land preparation for seed sowing
and after harvesting of crop)
Available potassium (mg kg-1) was analyzed with soil taken from different plots of the
experimental field before preparation of land and after harvesting of crop during the cropping
season of 2011, 2012 and 2013 respectively.
[100]
In 2011-12, the soil available potassium content varies between 62.73 mg kg-1 (T5) and
95.77 mg kg-1 (T4) before sowing of seeds. After harvesting of crop the available potassium
content varies between 73.25 mg kg-1 (T5) and 126.13 mg kg-1 (T4). Statistically significant
results were obtained in both the case of soils before land preparation and after harvesting among
the different varieties cultivated field plots. In the second experiment of mustard in 2012-13, the
available potassium content in soil before sowing of seeds lies between 78.63 mg kg-1 (T1) and
87.14 kg.ha-1 (T6) and after harvesting of crop the level lies between 96.0 kg.ha-1 (T5) and 148.3
kg.ha-1 (T4).
In the first experiment of paddy in 2012, the available potassium level before land
preparation lies between 77.53 mg kg-1 (T3) and 81.83 mg kg-1 (T6) and after harvesting of crop
varies between 131.5 mg kg-1 (T1) and 139.9 mg kg-1 (T4). In 2013 before sowing result lies
between 108.2 mg kg-1 (T2) and 123.4 mg kg-1 (T6) and after harvesting of crop the minimum and
maximum values were 130.9 mg kg-1 (T2) and 143.7 mg kg-1 (T4). Statistically significant results
were obtained both before land preparation and after harvesting of crops among the different
treatment of compost along with best screened dose of chemical fertilizer, vermicompost and
biofertilizer. The DMRT results have been presented in Tables 4.40, 4.41 and Fig. 4.53, 4.54,
4.117, 4.118.
Potassium presents in soils in 4 forms, which are dynamic equilibrium as follows (Su
1976):
Mineral K Non exchangeable Exchangeable K Soluble K (instantly

(Semi permanent → K (slowly mobilizable → (easily mobilizable → available K)
Reserve) stock of available K) reserve of available K)
The non exchangeable form exists in dynamic equilibrium with the available forms and,
therefore, acts as important reservoir of slowly available potassium. Application of the reduced
doses of potash fertilizer in T2, T3, T4, T5, T6 and T7 did not decrease the available K content
significantly in the post-harvest soil samples. At the same time, available K content in soil
increased by vermicompost and bio-fertilizer, as because when solution K depleted from soil, it
is replenished by other forms of K. The selective feeding of earthworm on organically rich
substances which breakdown during passage through the gun, biological grinding, together with
enzymatic influence on finer soil particles, were likely responsible for increasing the different
[101]
forms of K (Rao et al. 1996). The increase of soil organic matter resulted in decrease K fixation
and subsequent increase of K availability (Olk & Cassman 1993). Most of the simple cationic
forms of nutrients present in the soil at any time are in exchangeable forms associated with clay
minerals and the organic fractions of the soil, of which these can be rapidly exchanged with
cations in the soil solution. The results of the present investigation are in agreement with the
findings of Das et al. (2003) under cotton wheat sequence and Chavan et al. (2007) under
sorghum wheat cropping sequences.
4.32 Available phosphorous of the experimental soil (before land preparation for seed
The amount of available phosphorous mg kg-1 in soil before land preparation and after
harvesting of crops were measured in 2011, 2012 and 2013 and DMRT have been presented in
Table 4.38, 4.39 and Fig. 4.51, 4.52, 4.115, 4.116.
During treatment performance of 2011-12 of mustard, before land preparation the

minimum value was observed 38.73 mg kg-1 (T5) and maximum value was 46.37 mg kg-1 (T4).
After harvesting of crop, the minimum and maximum values were observed in T5 (50.57 mg kg-1)
and in T4 (109.37 mg kg-1). In second experiment of 2012-13, when the different combined dose
of vermicompost, biofertilizer and chemical fertilizer were applied to evaluate the yield
performance of mustard under such old alluvial soil zone, the level of available phosphorous in
soil before land preparation and after harvesting of crop from the field lies between 51.43 mg kg-
1
(T1) and 55.90 kg.ha-1 (T6), and between 65.0 mg kg-1 (T5) and 121.57 mg kg-1 (T4)
respectively.
In the first experiment of 2012 of paddy, the level of available phosphorous mg kg-1 lies
between 95.5 mg kg-1 (T3) and 114.5 mg kg-1 (T2) in case of soil samples before sowing of
seedlings. After harvesting of crops, the available phosphorous varies between 115.2 mg kg-1
(T3) and 189.0 mg kg-1(T6). In 2013, the available phosphorous content obtained in soil taken
from different plots before land preparation lies between 119.1 mg kg-1 (T1) and 125.3 mg kg-1
(T4). After harvesting of crop the minimum and maximum level of available phosphorous lies
between 151.5 mg kg-1 (T1) and 260.5 mg kg-1 (T6). When the data was statistically analyzed
there were significant differences in both before land preparation and after harvesting of crop.
[102]
Soils treated with vermicompost at the rate of 2.5 t ha-1 had significantly more P (P ≤
0.05) as compared to control plots. This implied that the continuous inputs of P to the soil were
probably from vermicompost and release of P was due largely to the activity of soil
microorganisms (Arancon et al. 2006). Marinari et al. (2000) showed similar increases in soil P
after application of organic amendments. The enhancement of phosphatase activity and physical
breakdown of material resulted in greater mineralization (Sharpley & Syres 1977). When an
organic source of nutrition is applied, the bond between phosphorus compounds with calcium
carbonate present in the soil is broken resulting in the release of phosphorous in a higher
available form. The authors’ findings corroborate with the earlier findings of Singh et al. (2002).
In this experiment the more available P probably could have contributed to decrease soil pH
caused from application of vermicompost.
4.33 Available Copper (mg kg-1) of the experimental soil (before land preparation for
seed sowing and after harvesting of crop)
Available copper content (mg kg-1) were measured in soils from different plots of the
experimental field before land preparation for sowing of seeds and after harvesting of crops
during the cropping season of 2011, 2012 and 2013 respectively. All the data with DMRT have
been presented in Table 4.42, 4.43 and Fig. 4.57, 4.58, 4.121, 4.127.
In all the years, there was an increasing trend in the available copper content in the soil
samples after harvesting than before land preparation for sowing of seeds. In all the years, the
results showed significant variation among the different treatments. The results of the present
investigation showed that in all the years, the level of copper increased significantly in the soil
post harvesting. Again treatment T4 examined the highest concentration in all the experiments.
The concentration of copper in the soil is mainly governed by the sorption and desorption from
the surfaces of the oxides as well as on organic matter content (Banerjee et al. 2011). In the
present investigation the available copper content gradually increased, which may be due to
binding of copper with manganese oxides and organic matter present in the soil rendering it as
non-exchangeable form and, therefore, not available for crop uptake. The increased level of
copper in the post harvesting soil could also be due to formation of stable complexes of copper
with humic acid and peat and the metal thus becomes immobilized. McLaren & Crawford (1973)
reported that the organic fraction in particular seems to be a source of specific copper adsorption
[103]
sites in the soil, because of its unique ability to form inner sphere complexes at wide range of pH
levels (Das et al. 1995)
4.34 Available iron (mg kg-1) of the experimental soil (before land preparation for seed
Available iron (ppm) in soil samples were analyzed in the soil taken in different plots of
the experimental field before land preparation sowing of seeds and after harvesting of crops
during the cropping season of 2011, 2012 and 2013.
In 2011-12 of mustard, the soil available iron content varies between 12.29 mg kg-1 (T2)
and 13.97 mg kg-1(T7) before land preparation. After harvesting of crop the available iron content
varies between 18.54 mg kg-1 (T3) and 20.78 mg kg-1 (T6). Statistically significant results were
obtained in case of soils before land preparation and after harvesting of crops. In the second
experiment of mustard in 2012-13, the available iron content in soil under various treatments of
biofertilizer and chemical fertilizer lies between 16.23 mg kg-1 (T5) to 17.48 mg kg-1 (T1) before
land preparation and after harvesting of crops it lays between 19.75 mg kg-1 (T3) and 22.94 mg
kg-1 (T4).
In the first experiment of paddy in 2012, the soil available iron content varies between
12.21 mg kg-1 (T5) and 12.77 mg kg-1 (T1, T2 and T3) before land preparation and after harvesting
of crops it varies between 19.32 mg kg-1 (T1) and 22.53 mg kg-1 (T4). In 2013, the soil available
iron content before land preparation varies between 15.16 mg kg-1 (T1) and 15.64 mg kg-1 (T4).
After harvesting of crop the value varies between 23.19 mg kg-1 (T3) and 24.37 mg kg-1 (T4). The
results were statistically significant after harvesting of crops and were shown in DMRT Tables
4.42, 4.43 and Fig. 4.59, 4.60, 4.123, 4.124.
The results of the present study showed that in both the experiment the available iron
content increased during post harvesting more than before sowing, which is attributed to high
levels of indigenous organic matter being present in the soil along with the applied organic
matter in terms of compost bound sufficient quantity of iron as reducible and insoluble form of
organic complexes and therefore rendering low crop uptake for all the three years of
experimental period (Mandal & Mitra 1982). The iron can be in oxidized or reduced forms,
therefore due to its acidic and reducing characteristics, an increase in soil organic matter could
increase the more available reduced form of iron Fe+2. Soil iron has a strong tendency to form
[104]
mobile organic complexes and chelates (Kabata-Pendias 2000) and thus contributing to increased
availability of iron in soil
4.35 Available Manganese (mg kg-1) of the experimental soil (before land preparation for
seed sowing and after harvesting of crop)
The available manganese content of soil before land preparation and after harvesting of
crop in 2011, 2012 and 2013 have been presented in Table 4.44, 4.45 and Fig. 4.61, 4.62, 4.125,
4.126.
In all the years, the trend of available manganese content was more in the soil taken after
harvesting of crop as compared to the manganese content in soil before land preparation for
sowing of seeds. In 2011-12 of mustard, the soil available Mn content varies between 6.45 mg
kg-1 (T3 and T5) and 7.50 mg kg-1(T1) before land preparation. After harvesting of crop the
available Mn content varies between 7.35 mg kg-1 (T7) and 8.43 mg kg-1 (T4). Statistically
significant results were obtained in case of soils before land preparation and after harvesting of
crops. In the second experiment of mustard in 2012-13, the available iron content in soil under
various treatments of vermicompost, biofertilizer and chemical fertilizer lies between 6.52 mg
kg-1 (T3) to 7.15 mg kg-1 (T1) before land preparation and after harvesting of crops it lays
between 7.37 mg kg-1 (T3) and 8.55 mg kg-1 (T4).
In the first experiment of paddy in 2012, the soil available Mn content varies between
6.21 mg kg-1 (T1 and T5) and 6.30 mg kg-1 (T2) before land preparation and after harvesting of
crops it varies between 7.70 mg kg-1 (T3) and 8.78 mg kg-1 (T4). In 2013, the soil available Mn
content before land preparation varies between 5.84 mg kg-1 (T4) and 6.1 mg kg-1 (T6). After
harvesting of crop the value varies between 7.34 mg kg-1 (T5) and 8.39 mg kg-1 (T4). There were
significant differences in available manganese level among the various treatments after
harvesting of crops.
The Mn availability in the soil was significantly (P ≤ 0.05) affected by vermicompost

treatments. The highest Mn concentrations were observed in T4 in all the consecutive
experimental years respectively. The application of vermicompost increased the available Mn
concentration as compared with the control. High content of extracted Mn with DTPA can be
due to the dissolution of Mn precipitates (carbonates, hydroxides and phosphate) caused by
microbial activity that changes soil pH and gaseous composition (Jordao et al. 2006). The higher
[105]
level of manganese content in soil samples after harvesting may be attributed to the level of soil
pH ranging between 6–7 of the respective soil samples and low uptake by crop plants. Under the
said pH range the available manganese (Mn2+) was converted into its higher oxides (Mn+3 and
Mn4+) which are insoluble in water and therefore unavailable to plants (Das 2007). The role of
organic matter and microbial activity also played a significant role toward increasing the
concentration of Mn in the post-harvest soil. The role of organic matter in complexing Mn is
important because organic matter can affect the redox status of soils. The microbial
decomposition of added organic matter in continuous crops creates reducing conditions that
favor manganese solubilization (Mandal & Mitra 1982).
4.36 Available Zinc (mg kg-1) of the experimental soil (before land preparation for seed
The data of available zinc content of soil before land preparation for sowing of seeds and
after harvesting of crop in 2011, 2012 and 2013 have been presented in Table 4.44, 4.45 and Fig.
4.63, 4.64, 4.127, 4.128 .
All the years the trend of available zinc content was more in the soil taken after
harvesting of crop as compared to the zinc content in soil before land preparation for sowing of
seeds except T1, in this case where recommended dose of chemical fertilizer was applied for
treatment performance of mustard. Again treatment T4 showed highest available Zn content in
soil in both the experiments and all the years.
The increased level of zinc in the post-harvested soil may be due to formation of solid
state organic matter. Zinc forming stable organic complexes with the soil organic matter
resulting into lesser availability for crop plants by the insoluble chelation reaction, causing
resistance to exchange between plant soils systems (Das 2007). The addition of exogenous
organic matter during the experimental period may also contribute to the zinc level, which due to
its ability to form complexes with zinc through its functional groups promotes zinc availability in
soils. The total Zn content, pH, organic matter, adsorption sites and microbial activity of the soil
affect the Zn availability (Alloway 1993). The soil pH is the most important factor controlling Zn
availability, which decreases with the increase of the pH (Shuman & Li 1996). In this experiment
increase Zn was attributed to the pH reduction and the greater organic matter degradation.
[106]
4.37 Economic analysis
In the 1st and 2nd years of experiment of mustard the addition of low-cost biofertilizer and
vermicompost effectively supplemented a portion of chemical fertilizer (25% NPK) in T4 to
produce the maximum gross return (Rs. 56,667 and 66,667), net return (Rs. 25,233 and 26,233)
as well as the cost:benefit ratio (1.80 and 2.12). Minimum net return was recorded in T2 (11,210
Rs ha-1) in both the mustard experimental year, but all the other treatments showed greater net
return than T2. The highest cost:benefit ratio of paddy study was recorded in T4 (3.09, 2.99). Net
return and cost:benefit ratio of first experimental years of paddy were lowest in T3 (56,831 Rs ha-
1
) (2.40) and in second experimental year it was in T1 (59,669 Rs ha-1) (2.17). With addition of
gradually increasing amounts of low-cost organic manure along with biofertilizer and reduced
dose of chemical fertilizer, the cost of cultivation increased to some extent, but the accumulated
impact was more positive in the case of gross return, net return as well as in a benefit:cost ratio.
The maximum gross return, net return and benefit:cost ratio were recorded in T4 where
vermicompost was added at 2.5 t ha−1 with 25% reduced recommended chemical fertilizer dose.
The comparative economic analysis shows that a reduction of chemical fertilizer application with
a combination of biofertilizer and vermicompost proved extremely beneficial and it reached its
pinnacle in T4. The data have been presented in Table 4.15, 4.16 and Fig. 4.65, 4.129.
[107]
Tables
Table 4.1 Growth attributes of Mustard (Year 2011-12 and 2012-13)
Plant height (cm) Root length (cm) Leaf area index

(60 DAS) (60 DAS) (45 DAS)
2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13
T1 d c ab c d d
76.83 80.67 14.25 15.33 1.59 6.68
T2 bc c ab c bcd abc
87.20 78.29 13.52 15.14 2.14 8.30
T3 cd c b d cd bcd
80.72 79.77 12.07 12.48 1.77 7.94
T4 a a a a a a
102.08 107.44 16.08 19.03 4.32 9.48
T5 bc c ab c bcd cd
88.58 78.90 14.05 15.48 2.59 7.21
T6 ab c ab b ab ab
94.83 99.26 13.03 17.23 3.34 8.84
T7 ab b b c bc cd
93.30 95.68 12.17 16.10 2.95 7.17
SEM± 2.95 2.63 1.01 0.32 0.37 0.39
CD AT 5% 5.7 5.1 12.9 3.5 2.54 2.62
CV% 7.19 6.79 4.21 2.36 22.73 8.6
LSD AT 9.09 8.1 3.12 0.98 1.14 1.21
5%
Table 4.2 Growth attributes of Paddy (Year 2012 and 2013)
Plant height (cm) Root length (cm) Leaf area index

(60 DAT) (60 DAT) (45 DAT)
2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013
T1 b cd cd ef d ab
85.23 79.72 15.27 15.08 39.85 42.90
T2 b bc bc c bcd ab
85.57 83.52 17.40 18.22 45.22 40.69
T3 b d d f cd ab
80.90 74.00 14.40 14.68 41.41 35.04
T4 a a a a a a
93.30 95.15 22.13 23.17 64.42 54.83
T5 b cd bcd d cd b
83.00 79.80 17.03 16.77 41.20 26.58
T6 b ab b b b ab
84.37 88.53 19.0 20.93 52.20 47.62
T7 b bc cd de bc ab
83.23 84.05 16.20 16.52 50.66 43.04
SEM± 1.79 2.24 0.84 0.47 3.19 7.09
CD AT 5% 3.6 4.6 8.4 4.5 11.6 29.6
CV% 5.59 6.2 3.84 2.86 7.48 11.15
LSD AT 5.51 6.90 2.59 1.44 9.85 21.86
5%
[108]
Tables
Dry weight of root and shoot (g) Dry weight of leaves (g)
(45 DAS) (45 DAS)
2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13
T1 g f d e
8.32 8.29 1.62 2.15
T2 e d cd cde
11.21 12.22 2.28 2.89
T3 f e cd de
10.75 10.69 2.13 2.61
T4 a a a a
13.34 14.12 4.13 4.49
T5 d d bc bcd
11.90 12.31 2.88 3.22
T6 b b ab ab
12.51 13.28 3.48 3.75
T7 c c bc bc
12.20 12.87 3.04 3.51
SEM± 0.03 0.09 0.31 0.25
CD AT 5% 0.78 1.25 2.35 2.09
CV% 0.5 1.3 19.5 13.4
LSD AT 5% 0.11 0.27 0.97 0.77
Dry weight of root and shoot (g) Dry weight of leaves (g)
(45 DAT) (45 DAT)
2012 2013 2012 2013
T1 c c bc c
16.42 15.53 9.80 10.96
T2 bc bc c bc
18.30 17.32 7.88 13.46
T3 c c c c
17.01 15.68 7.10 10.83
T4 a a a a
22.56 22.35 15.13 18.34
T5 bc bc abc ab
18.89 17.84 11.23 15.04
T6 ab ab ab ab
20.85 20.35 13.39 16.79
T7 ab b ab ab
20.33 18.82 12.37 15.54
SEM± 0.77 0.89 1.33 1.03
CD AT 5% 7.0 8.8 21.0 12.4
CV% 3.68 3.95 4.83 4.25
LSD AT 5% 2.83 2.85 4.10 3.18
[109]
Tables
Angle on primary branching (º) Angle on secondary branching (º)

2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13
T1 a a a a
39.17 26.93 38.50 27.13
T2 a a a a
32.57 34.67 34.33 34.07
T3 a a a a
34.35 40.27 34.83 36.67
T4 a a a a
32.25 32.73 35.33 30.60
T5 a a a a
36.33 34.27 36.67 28.93
T6 a a a a
33.67 38.33 32.50 29.40
T7 a a a a
38.17 27.80 37.50 27.73
SEM± 2.80 5.03 2.66 3.87
CD AT 5% 13.8 6.68 12.9 21.8
CV% 2.19 9.39 6.83 8.23
LSD AT 5% 8.63 15.50 8.21 11.91
Effective tillers hill-1 Panicle Length (cm)

2012 2013 2012 2013
T1 d d bc b
13.22 14.11 21.74 22.86
T2 b cd c b
15.89 15.11 21.00 22.59
T3 cd d d c
13.67 14.33 19.29 20.34
T4 a a a a
18.22 22.11 23.76 24.29
T5 cd cd bc b
13.33 16.44 21.53 23.14
T6 ab b ab b
16.56 19.11 22.81 22.34
T7 bc c c b
15.33 16.78 20.84 22.46
SEM± 0.62 0.71 0.47 0.35
CD AT 5% 7.1 7.3 3.8 2.7
CV% 3.31 3.53 2.88 2.47
LSD AT 5% 1.92 2.19 1.45 1.07
[110]
Tables
Table 4.7 Yield attributes of Mustard (Year 2011-12 and 2012-13)
Siliquae length (cm) Siliquae diameter (cm)

2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13
T1 a c a ab
4.1 4.11 1.2 1.57
T2 a b a ab
4.4 4.32 1.4 1.59
T3 a c a a
4.3 4.06 1.5 1.6
T4 a a a a
4.5 4.56 1.2 1.61
T5 a bc a b
4.4 4.22 1.1 1.51
T6 a b a ab
4.2 4.36 1.3 1.59
T7 a bc a ab
4.0 4.24 1.3 1.54
SEM± 0.25 0.06 0.20 0.02
CD AT 5% 10.0 1.04 27.3 0.66
CV% 2.09 2.5 1.89 2.7
LSD AT 5% 0.77 0.19 0.63 0.07
Table 4.8 Yield attributes of Paddy (Year 2012 and 2013)
Weight of 10 panicles per plot (g) No. of spikelet’s panicle-1

2012 2013 2012 2013
T1 ab c d ab
32.70 32.03 180.8 181.4
T2 ab bc d bc
33.87 32.87 180.4 173.6
T3 b d e c
31.60 27.94 139.9 153.5
T4 a a a a
39.05 40.38 203.6 201.5
T5 b cd cd ab
29.92 31.25 183.2 187.5
T6 ab b b ab
35.76 36.43 192.6 183.1
T7 ab bc bc ab
32.77 33.77 187.5 190.3
SEM± 1.04 1.13 2.06 7.93
CD AT 5% 10.4 5.9 2.0 7.6
CV% 4.26 4.46 6.01 11.79
LSD AT 5% 6.22 3.5 6.35 24.45
[111]
Tables
No. of seeds per siliquae No. of siliquae per plant

2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13
T1 ab bc bcd bc
20.10 19.80 46.56 46.44
T2 ab abc abc ab
20.77 21.03 51.11 51.00
T3 ab a d c
21.80 22.13 40.33 40.78
T4 a a a a
22.97 22.77 59.0 57.11
T5 ab abc cd bc
20.83 21.0 42.89 43.33
T6 ab ab ab abc
21.77 21.77 54.44 47.89
T7 b c bcd bc
19.33 19.37 45.78 44.44
SEM± 0.85 0.63 3.12 2.99
CD AT 5% 6.9 5.1 11.1 11.0
CV% 3.85 3.31 7.40 9.69
LSD AT 5% 2.61 1.93 9.62 9.21
Number of filled grain panicle-1 Percentage of Chaffy grains

panicle-1
2012 2013 2012 2013
T1 d b b a
131.1 126.0 27.48 30.67
T2 d bc b a
134.8 120.4 27.76 30.67
T3 e c a a
91.0 100.0 34.96 35.23
T4 a a d bc
167.5 154.1 17.70 21.51
T5 c a bc c
140.2 152.3 23.43 32.86
T6 b ab cd b
153.0 137.9 20.55 24.69
T7 c ab bc b
144.1 144.2 23.13 24.23
SEM± 1.55 7.58 1.41 1.52
CD AT 5% 2.0 9.8 9.8 9.8
CV% 5.21 11.53 4.97 5.16
LSD AT 5% 4.77 23.35 4.35 2.15
[112]
Tables
Test weight (g) Oil content (%)

2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13
T1 ab bc e e
2.53 2.64 32.11 37.20
T2 ab ab d d
2.68 2.76 33.64 39.00
T3 ab bc d e
2.57 2.56 33.91 37.34
T4 a a a a
2.72 2.98 40.09 46.70
T5 ab bc b c
2.60 2.61 37.86 42.45
T6 ab bc c b
2.55 2.53 35.79 45.12
T7 b c cd b
2.43 2.39 34.65 44.45
SEM± 0.07 0.10 0.42 0.29
CD AT 5% 5.2 6.4 2.1 1.2
CV% 1.17 1.30 7.24 2.25
LSD AT 5% 0.24 0.30 0.85 0.89
Number of chaffy panicle-1 Test weight (g)

2012 2013 2012 2013
T1 a a bc b
49.67 55.43 20.42 20.27
T2 abc a bc bc
45.57 53.23 20.71 19.02
T3 ab a c c
48.90 53.50 19.60 18.30
T4 e c a a
36.10 37.37 23.99 24.92
T5 cd ab ab a
42.93 48.57 22.69 23.95
T6 de bc ab a
39.60 41.83 23.12 23.29
T7 bcd abc ab a
43.37 46.13 22.62 24.13
SEM± 1.73 3.13 0.85 0.54
CD AT 5% 6.9 11.3 6.7 4.2
CV% 5.51 7.41 3.85 3.07
LSD AT 5% 5.35 9.65 2.61 1.66
[113]
Tables
Table 4.13 Yield and harvest index of Mustard (Year 2011-12 and 2012-13)
Seed yield (t ha-1) Straw yield (t ha-1) Harvest Index (%)

2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13
T1 c d c b ab c
1.05 1.03 1.78 1.65 54.82 63.35
T2 c cd ab a ab c
1.08 1.08 2.15 2.22 59.42 57.92
T3 ab ab abc b ab b
1.28 1.47 2.08 1.70 58.07 86.99
T4 a a a a a a
1.42 1.67 2.28 2.47 71.27 113.27
T5 bc cd bc b ab bc
1.13 1.12 1.92 1.75 54.99 69.41
T6 ab bc a a ab b
1.27 1.32 2.38 2.53 64.98 86.31
T7 c cd ab b b bc
1.10 1.15 2.20 1.68 54.25 73.97
SEM± 51.63 80.14 101.44 153.87 4.846 5.694
CD AT 5% 7.5 11.0 8.3 13.5 9.218 9.991
CV% 30.08 37.48 42.17 51.94 14.1 12.5
LSD AT 9.42 11.73 13.20 16.26 14.93 17.54
5%
Table 4.14 Yield and harvest index of Paddy (Year 2012 and 2013)
Grain yield (t ha-1) Straw yield (t ha-1) Biological yield Harvest Index (%)
(t ha-1)
2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013
T1 c c bc c c b bcd c
7.53 6.72 9.87 8.53 17.40 15.25 36.99 37.01
T2 c c bc c c b cd abc
7.55 6.63 9.88 8.88 17.43 15.52 35.77 39.07
T3 c c c c c b d bc
7.28 6.60 9.03 8.37 16.32 14.97 34.76 37.83
T4 a a a a a a a a
9.38 9.00 13.82 14.82 23.20 23.82 45.44 45.11
T5 bc c bc bc bc b abc ab
7.82 6.50 10.27 9.93 18.08 16.43 41.90 43.09
T6 b a ab ab ab a ab ab
8.33 8.43 12.95 13.62 21.28 22.05 42.85 43.62
T7 c b abc ab bc a abcd ab
7.23 7.63 10.70 13.33 17.93 20.97 40.35 43.55
SEM± 0.18 0.23 1.06 1.32 1.12 1.39 1.96 1.82
CV% 4.0 5.5 16.8 20.7 10.3 13.1 8.5 7.6
CD AT 1.75 2.02 4.31 4.82 4.43 4.94 5.86 5.65
5%
LSD AT 0.55 0.72 3.27 4.08 3.44 4.29 6.03 5.61
5%
[114]
Tables
Table 4.15 Economic analysis of Mustard (Year 2011-12 and 2012-13)

Treatment Fixed cost Cost of Total Gross Return Net Return Cost:benefit Ratio
(except chemical cost
chemical fertilizer,bi-
fertilizer, ofertilizer
vermicomp- and
ost, vermicomp-
biofertilizer) ost
A B C
2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13

D E F G I=D/C J=E/C
T1 20780 7562 28342 42000 41333 13658 12991 1.48 1.46

T2 20780 11344 32124 43333 43333 11210 11201 1.35 1.35
T3 20780 10344 31124 51333 58667 20210 27544 1.65 1.88
T4 20780 10654 31434 56667 66667 25233 35233 1.80 2.12
T5 20780 9654 30434 45333 44667 14900 14233 1.49 1.47
T6 20780 12230 33010 50667 52667 17656 19656 1.53 1.59
T7 20780 11230 32010 44000 46000 11990 13990 1.37 1.44
Table 4.16 Economic analysis of Paddy (Year 2012 and 2013)

Treatment Fixed cost Cost of Total Gross return Net return Cost:benefit
(except chemical cost ratio
chemical fertilizer, bio- 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013
fertilizer, fertilizer and D E F G I=D/C J=E/C
vermicompost, vermicompost
bio-fertilizer) B C
A
T1 39750 1813 41563 101232 90142 59669 48579 2.44 2.17
T2 39750 961 40711 101489 89269 60778 48558 2.49 2.19
T3 39750 921 40671 97502 88527 56831 47856 2.40 2.18
T4 39750 1399 41149 127200 123171 85851 82022 3.09 2.99
T5 39750 1360 41110 105145 88400 64035 47290 2.56 2.56
T6 39750 1837 41587 113449 115182 71862 73595 2.73 2.77
T7 39750 1797 41547 98079 104973 56532 63426 2.36 2.53
[115]
Tables
Table 4.17 Leaf area ratios, leaf area duration and crop growth rate of Mustard (Year
2011-12 and 2012-13)
LAR on 45 DAS LAD on 45-60 DAS CGR on 45-60 DAS

2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13
T1 d cd b bc c e
6.68 5.59 6.79 7.59 4.23 5.06
T2 abc e b bc bc d
8.30 4.01 7.97 6.59 5.03 6.72
T3 bcd de b c c e
7.94 4.93 7.12 6.24 3.88 5.13
T4 a a a a a a
9.48 10.11 11.46 10.91 10.54 10.49
T5 cd cd b c abc c
7.21 5.56 8.33 5.99 6.75 8.11
T6 ab b ab b ab b
8.84 8.11 9.16 8.39 9.09 9.21
T7 cd c ab bc abc c
7.17 6.49 8.76 6.95 7.69 7.99
SEM± 0.004 0.45 0.90 0.62 1.24 0.29
CD AT 5% 0.27 2.80 3.97 3.31 4.66 2.24
CV% 8.6 12.1 18.3 14.7 16.51 6.6
LSD AT 1.21 1.38 2.77 1.97 3.82 0.88
5%
Table 4.18 Leaf area ratios, leaf area duration and crop growth rate of paddy (Year 2012
and 2013)
LAR on 45 DAT LAD on 45-60 DAT CGR on 45-60 DAT

2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013
T1 b a 84.3c ab a b
0.007 0.008 61.91 16.68 1.74
T2 b ab 98.7b ab a b
0.007 0.005 59.40 14.79 6.42
T3 ab a 84.5d ab a b
0.007 0.007 62.54 14.33 8.03
T4 a ab 133.9a a a a
0.012 0.005 78.87 16.57 15.48
T5 b b 96.7bc b a b
0.006 0.003 46.84 11.77 2.58
T6 b ab 122.5a ab a b
0.006 0.005 61.50 15.34 6.32
T7 ab ab 103.8b ab a b
0.007 0.005 64.80 14.14 1.74
SEM± 0.001 0.0009 3.91 6.26 4.10 2.15
CD AT 5% 14.0 18.9 6.5 17.4 13.68 22.08
CV% 0.162 0.125 8.27 10.47 8.48 6.13
LSD AT 0.005 0.003 12.03 19.28 12.63 6.61
5%
[116]
Tables
Table 4.19 Net assimilation rate and relative growth rate of Mustard (Year 2011-12 and
2012-13)
NAR on 45-60 DAT RGR on 45-60 DAT

2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13
T1 c ab ab ab
0.32 0.17 0.06 0.08
T2 c bc b b
0.89 0.13 0.04 0.06
T3 c c b b
0.67 0.09 0.03 0.05
T4 a a a a
2.41 0.21 0.09 0.13
T5 bc bc b b
0.97 0.14 0.05 0.06
T6 a ab ab b
1.79 0.16 0.06 0.06
T7 ab abc ab b
1.69 0.15 0.06 0.06
SEM± 0.24 0.02 0.01 0.02
CD AT 5% 2.06 0.59 0.49 0.53
CV% 13.6 22.5 13.0 18.7
LSD AT 5% 0.75 0.06 0.04 0.05
Table 4.20 Net assimilation rate and relative growth rate of Paddy (Year 2012 and 2013)
NAR on 45-60 DAT RGR on 45-60 DAT

2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13
T1 b b a abc
1.25 1.14 0.010 0.007
T2 b ab a abc
1.56 1.55 0.009 0.007
T3 b ab a ab
0.96 1.81 0.009 0.012
T4 a a a a
3.49 3.84 0.007 0.015
T5 b b a bc
1.33 0.84 0.007 0.003
T6 b ab a abc
1.66 1.52 0.008 0.008
T7 b b a c
1.07 0.39 0.008 0.002
SEM± 0.43 0.75 0.002 0.003
CD AT 5% 20.33 14.59 19.5 20.3
CV% 2.73 3.62 0.20 0.22
LSD AT 5% 1.31 2.06 0.004 0.01
[117]
Tables
Table 4.21 Chlorophyll content in physiologically active leaf and photosynthetic rate of
Mustard (Year 2011-12 and 2012-13)
Total chlorophyll (mg g-1FW) on Photosynthetic rate (µ mol m-2 s-1)

45 DAS on 45 DAS
2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13
T1 b b f c
2.53 1.42 19.15 22.58
T2 c b d abc
1.26 1.41 22.18 23.43
T3 b b e bc
2.36 1.4 20.05 22.74
T4 a a a a
3.26 1.92 24.03 25.38
T5 b b c abc
2.44 1.39 23.12 24.12
T6 b ab ab ab
2.48 1.69 23.65 24.67
T7 b b bc abc
1.96 1.55 23.52 24.50
SEM± 0.19 0.09 0.13 0.59
CD AT 5% 1.85 1.29 1.54 3.22
CV% 12.8 10.8 1.1 4.3
LSD AT 5% 0.53 0.29 0.42 1.82
Table 4.22 Chlorophyll content in flag leaf and photosynthetic rate of Paddy (Year 2012
and 2013)
Total chlorophyll (mg g-1FW) on Photosynthetic rate (µ mol m-2 s-1)

45 DAT on 45 DAT
2012 2013 2012 2013
T1 ab bc d b
2.68 3.30 24.90 27.91
T2 ab bc bcd b
2.88 3.63 26.93 28.36
T3 b c cd b
2.28 3.05 26.49 27.06
T4 a a a a
4.30 5.36 30.97 31.04
T5 ab bc abc ab
3.11 3.60 28.49 29.07
T6 ab ab a ab
3.58 4.35 29.86 29.43
T7 ab bc ab ab
3.28 3.86 29.30 29.22
SEM± 0.50 0.34 0.79 0.74
CD AT 5% 22.39 15.1 3.74 3.6
CV% 2.96 2.43 4.9 4.4
LSD AT 5% 1.54 1.04 2.46 2.28
[118]
Tables
Table 4.23 Total soluble sugar and proline content in physiologically active leaf of Mustard
(Year 2011-12 and 2012-13)
Total soluble sugar (mg g-1FW) Proline content (mg g-1FW) on 45

on 45 DAS DAS
2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13
T1 b c b b
6.52 4.93 0.636 0.351
T2 ab bc ab ab
9.21 7.26 0.845 0.942
T3 ab bc ab b
7.97 6.79 0.711 0.618
T4 a a a a
13.71 16.32 0.141 0.148
T5 ab bc b b
9.48 8.96 0.649 0.746
T6 ab ab ab a
12.74 11.48 0.114 0.139
T7 ab bc ab ab
11.97 8.30 0.939 0.893
SEM± 1.87 1.65 2.19 1.89
CD AT 5% 5.72 5.39 6.19 5.77
CV% 13.37 14.06 16.35 15.02
LSD AT 5% 5.76 5.10 6.75 5.84
Table 4.24 Total soluble sugar and proline content in flag leaf of Paddy (Year 2012 and
2013)
Total soluble sugar (mg g-1FW) Proline content (mg g-1FW) on 45

on 45 DAS DAS
2012 2013 2012 2013
T1 b b a a
8.42 9.84 0.271 0.297
T2 ab ab bc bc
10.98 11.66 0.179 0.172
T3 b b ab ab
7.73 9.61 0.23 0.267
T4 a a d d
16.17 17.28 0.049 0.04
T5 ab ab bc bc
9.75 12.54 0.186 0.177
T6 ab ab d d
13.97 15.15 0.055 0.054
T7 ab ab c c
12.07 13.32 0.141 0.156
SEM± 2.24 1.90 0.020 0.03
CD AT 5% 14.4 15.7 12.0 12.4
CV% 6.27 5.77 0.594 0.74
LSD AT 5% 6.91 5.84 0.06 0.10
[119]
Tables
Table 4.25 Soil bacterial colony count in before sowing and after harvesting soil of
Soil Bacterial Count (CFU g-1 dry soil)

2011-12 2012-13
Before sowing After harvesting Before sowing After harvesting
T1 bc d e d
61.67 68 50.27 58
T2 a c b c
64.67 90 72.30 92
T3 cd c c c
60.67 82.67 70.47 83.33
T4 a a a a
65.50 124.33 73.27 129
T5 b bc ab b
62.33 97 72.67 106
T6 b a d a
62.03 130.67 69.63 129.33
T7 d b b b
60.20 104.67 72.37 102
SEM± 0.33 7.71 0.26 5.36
CD AT 5% 2.39 7.7 2.12 5.4
CV% 0.91 22.58 0.6 20.3
LSD AT 5% 1.0 8.97 0.79 6.25
Table 4.26 Soil bacterial colony count in transplantation and after harvesting soil of
Soil Bacterial Count (CFU g-1 dry soil)

2012 2013
Before After harvesting Before After harvesting
transplantation transplantation
T1 bc f d e
32.0 70.70 31.87 51.73
T2 a d e c
39.07 86.60 28.67 88.90
T3 b e a d
33.83 79.27 39.0 66.83
T4 b a c a
33.33 121.90 34.67 134.67
T5 bc c d c
31.43 101.10 31.43 81.43
T6 c b b a
27.97 107.83 37.57 127.57
T7 bc c d b
30.83 103.30 31.73 118.40
SEM± 1.33 0.77 0.42 2.44
CD AT 5% 4.83 3.67 2.70 6.54
CV% 7.1 1.4 2.2 4.4
LSD AT 5% 4.1 2.37 1.28 7.52
[120]
Tables
Table 4.27 Soil fungal colony count in before sowing and after harvesting soil of Mustard
cultivation (Year 2011-12 and 2012-13)
Soil fungal Count (CFU g-1 dry soil)

2011-12 2012-13
Before sowing After harvesting Before sowing After harvesting
T1 d b c d
7.17 9.1 9.33 11
T2 c a b cd
7.83 9.77 15.67 13.67
T3 d b c cd
7.0 9.17 9.67 12.33
T4 ab b a a
8.37 8.83 21.33 25.67
T5 a b b bc
8.5 9.0 15.67 17.67
T6 abc ab a b
8.17 9.37 21.33 19.67
T7 bc b ab bcd
8.0 9.0 17.33 14.33
SEM± 0.13 0.16 2.45 3.01
CD AT 5% 1.53 1.69 15.5 18.4
CV% 2.9 3.1 3.6 4.8
LSD AT 5% 0.49 0.50 2.85 3.51
Table 4.28 Soil fungal colony count in before transplantation and after harvesting soil of
Soil Fungal Count (CFU g-1 dry soil)

2012 2013
Before After harvesting Before After harvesting
transplantation transplantation
T1 ab d b de
7.07 12.53 8.03 13.00
T2 ab c b cd
7.00 17.60 7.60 16.00
T3 ab d b e
7.03 11.70 7.37 12.37
T4 a a ab a
8.43 28.63 8.63 27.43
T5 b c a c
6.10 17.77 10.10 17.10
T6 ab b b ab
7.00 24.23 7.90 25.23
T7 b bc b b
5.47 20.97 7.63 22.63
SEM± 0.58 1.19 0.64 1.12
CD AT 5% 3.18 4.58 3.34 4.42
CV% 14.5 10.9 13.5 10.1
LSD AT 5% 1.77 3.68 1.96 3.44
[121]
Tables
Table 4.29 Soil specific gravity and temperature in before sowing and after harvesting soil
Specific gravity (g/cc) Temperature (ºC)

2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13
Before After Before After Before After Before After
sowing harvesting sowing harvesting sowing harvesting sowing harvesting
T1 e d b f b c b c
1.16 1.20 1.16 1.31 23.67 36.37 23.83 37.17
T2 c b e c a b a b
1.30 1.33 1.08 1.47 24.23 36.83 24.23 37.87
T3 d c a e c d e e
1.26 1.29 1.23 1.41 22.80 35.47 20.37 35.63
T4 a a c a a a c a
1.38 1.40 1.14 1.54 24.43 38.13 22.50 38.83
T5 cd b d d b c d d
1.29 1.35 1.12 1.45 23.70 36.17 21.70 36.13
T6 a a d b c a d b
1.38 1.40 1.11 1.49 22.53 37.83 21.43 37.90
T7 b a b e a b c c
1.34 1.38 1.17 1.41 24.37 37.03 22.63 37.30
SEM± 0.01 0.007 0.003 0.005 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.11
CD AT 0.42 0.35 0.25 0.31 1.5 1.63 1.42 1.38
5% 1.4 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.5
CV% 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.39 0.46 0.36 0.33
LSD AT
5%
Table 4.30 Soil specific gravity and temperature in before transplantation and after
Specific gravity (g/cc) Temperature (ºC)

2012 2013 2012 2013
transplantation harvesting transplantation harvesting transplantation harvesting transplantation harvesting
T1 b b e d abc a bc a
1.19 1.22 1.28 1.31 40.07 36.87 39.73 37.27
T2 d d ce cd abcd bc bc c
1.11 1.14 1.30 1.34 39.37 34.87 39.03 35.13
T3 e e cde cd a ab ab ab
1.09 1.13 1.30 1.33 41.33 36.47 40.00 37.07
T4 a a a a bcd c bc c
1.44 1.49 1.36 1.40 38.70 33.97 39.37 34.63
T5 e e bc bc d a c ab
1.09 1.12 1.33 1.35 37.73 36.87 38.40 36.77
T6 c c b ab ab c a bc
1.16 1.20 1.33 1.38 40.47 34.40 41.13 35.63
T7 c c bcd bc cd abc bc abc
1.16 1.19 1.33 1.36 38.07 35.33 39.40 36.00
SEM± 0.006 0.005 0.007 0.01 0.67 0.55 0.43 0.48
CD
AT 0.33 0.29 1.0 0.42 3.42 3.10 2.76 2.9
5% 6.61 5.72 0.36 7.46 2.9 2.7 1.9 2.3
CV% 0.02 0.09 0.02 1.13 2.06 1.69 1.34 1.48
LSD
AT
5%
[122]
Tables
Table 4.31 Bulk density and Particle density in before sowing and after harvesting soil of
Bulk density (g/cc) Particle density (g/cc)

2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13
T1 e ab d a b c d e
1.11 0.79 1.49 0.73 2.42 1.89 2.41 1.89
T2 cd a e d b c d d
1.16 0.83 1.44 0.58 2.42 1.92 2.40 1.93
T3 de ab b b c d e f
1.12 0.82 1.54 0.71 2.38 1.83 2.34 1.84
T4 a ab a c d a a a
1.31 0.81 1.65 0.62 2.21 2.16 2.58 2.15
T5 c ab g e b c c e
1.18 0.80 1.32 0.54 2.42 1.92 2.43 1.91
T6 b ab f d a b a b
1.26 0.82 1.36 0.58 2.50 1.98 2.57 2.03
T7 cd b c e d b b c
1.15 0.78 1.51 0.54 2.21 1.96 2.56 1.96
SEM± 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.003 0.007 0.01 0.005 0.006
CD AT 5% 0.47 0.47 0.25 0.24 0.36 0.42 0.28 0.33
CV% 1.8 2.7 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.91 0.3 0.6
LSD AT 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02
5%
Table 4.32 Bulk density and Particle density in before sowing and after harvesting soil of
Bulk density (g/cc) Particle density (g/cc)

2012 2013 2012 2013
T1 cd a a a c b d e
1.03 0.69 1.12 0.77 2.41 2.37 2.18 2.15
T2 bc bc a e e d c c
1.05 0.64 1.10 0.56 2.26 2.23 2.22 2.21
T3 d c a c a a a a
1.01 0.61 1.12 0.67 2.55 2.52 2.28 2.27
T4 c a a d b a a a
1.04 0.71 1.11 0.63 2.52 2.53 2.28 2.26
T5 a ab a c d c c d
1.10 0.66 1.09 0.68 2.36 2.31 2.21 2.19
T6 b ab b a f e b b
1.07 0.68 1.04 0.75 2.19 2.16 2.25 2.23
T7 bc c a b g f a a
1.06 0.61 1.11 0.71 2.09 1.99 2.29 2.27
SEM± 0.007 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.004 0.009 0.006 0.003
CD AT 1.2 0.50 1.9 0.29 2.72 0.39 3.48 0.24
5%
CV%
0.36 18.16 0.46 1.2 0.27 4.13 0.33 0.3
LSD 0.02 0.04 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.02 0.01
AT 5%
[123]
Tables
Table 4.33 Porosity and water holding capacity in before sowing and after harvesting soil
Porosity (%) WHC (%)

2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13
T1 a b c bc ab e d e
54.13 58.11 38.31 61.27 43.14 44.16 44.33 45.63
T2 c b b bc c c b d
52.13 57.86 39.94 60.45 42.18 44.93 44.89 46.39
T3 b c d c b de f e
52.87 55.37 34.43 58.33 42.84 44.53 43.31 45.82
T4 f a f a a a a a
40.72 62.29 19.87 71.05 43.4 46.51 45.26 50.13
T5 d b a bc d f b d
51.17 58.4 44.83 61.85 41.23 43.47 44.92 46.51
T6 e b a b d b c b
49.67 58.68 45.15 64.88 41.61 45.83 44.60 48.94
T7 e b e bc c cd e c
49.4 59.97 30.14 62.62 42.41 44.83 44.0 47.25
SEM± 0.14 0.65 0.19 1.64 0.13 0.12 0.04 0.11
CD AT
5% 1.55 3.37 1.83 5.36 1.54 1.46 0.85 1.38
CV% 0.5 1.9 0.9 4.5 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.4
LSD AT 0.42 1.98 0.59 5.05 0.42 0.38 0.13 0.33
5%
Table 4.34 Porosity and water holding capacity in before transplantation and after
Porosity (%) WHC (%)

2012 2013 2012 2013
T1 b bc c f b f a d
56.40 70.75 48.54 64.29 41.91 42.34 43.64 44.12
T2 c bc b a e c c c
52.70 71.11 50.30 74.77 40.55 43.53 42.56 45.11
T3 a a b c c e c g
59.84 75.82 50.81 70.48 41.33 42.70 42.42 43.22
T4 a b b b d a c a
58.83 72.04 51.24 72.31 40.84 45.49 42.6 46.24
T5 c bc b d c g b f
52.38 71.29 50.45 69.06 41.45 42.17 43.22 43.75
T6 d d a e b b b b
50.38 68.57 53.56 66.27 41.75 44.97 43.22 45.83
T7 e cd b d a d c e
47.08 69.62 51.46 68.91 42.30 43.27 42.77 43.93
SEM± 0.38 0.56 0.53 0.23 0.08 0.05 0.13 0.05
CD AT 5% 1.14 3.14 1.8 2.02 1.2 0.89 1.52 0.92
CV%
LSD AT
2.57 1.4 3.05 0.69 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.2
5% 0.80 1.73 1.64 0.63 0.25 0.14 0.41 0.15
[124]
Tables
Table 4.35 Moisture content in before sowing and after harvesting soil of Mustard (Year
2011-12 and 2012-13) and paddy cultivation (2012 and 2013)
Moisture content (%) during mustard Moisture content (%) during paddy cultivation
cultivation
2011-12 2012-13 2012 2013
sowing harvesting sowing harvesting transplantation harvesting transplantation harvesting
T1 b e e e c f g g
6.43 8.17 2.87 9.07 4.68 6.12 7.15 8.11
T2 b d c d e d d d
6.86 8.40 4.07 9.99 4.28 6.81 7.61 9.23
T3 b de d c b c f f
6.36 8.33 3.45 11.04 5.02 7.12 7.38 8.67
T4 a a a a a a b a
7.48 10.62 4.53 11.35 6.43 8.23 7.69 10.56
T5 b c f b f g c e
6.81 9.16 2.23 11.17 3.98 5.12 7.67 9.12
T6 b b f g d b a b
6.67 9.93 2.24 8.14 4.45 7.24 7.81 10.33
T7 b b b f g e e c
6.79 9.73 4.46 9.02 3.04 6.65 7.57 10.11
SEM± 0.18 0.07 0.01 0.004 0.001 0.01 0.003 0.006
CD AT 1.79 1.1 0.47 0.25 0.78 0.45 0.1 0.33
5%
CV%
4.7 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.15 0.30 0.22 0.10
LSD AT 0.56 0.21 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.009 0.02
5%
Table 4.36 Electrical conductivity and PH in before sowing and after harvesting soil of
Electrical conductivity (µmoh/cm)

PH
2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13
T1 c c c c cd c c f
111.8 116.5 104.0 122.7 6.01 6.06 5.85 6.11
T2 e e c d bc b b e
108.2 109.4 102.4 116.1 6.06 6.18 5.89 6.24
T3 f f b e d c e f
104.8 107.1 110.8 114.0 5.96 6.06 5.72 6.10
T4 a a ab a a a a a
118.9 123.5 111.8 127.8 6.20 6.28 5.91 6.34
T5 d d a f b b d d
109.5 113.8 113.1 106.1 6.11 6.21 5.80 6.27
T6 b b b a a a g b
114.8 117.7 109.9 128.2 6.26 6.28 5.13 6.32
T7 c c b b a a f c
112.1 115.7 110.7 126.3 6.26 6.30 5.64 6.30
SEM± 0.26 0.3 0.62 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.003 0.003
CD AT 2.14 2.29 3.30 1.47 0.61 0.52 0.25 0.24
5%
CV%
0.4 0.5 1.0 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.1
LSD AT 0.8 0.92 1.91 0.38 0.07 0.05 0.01 0.01
5%
[125]
Tables
Table 4.37 Electrical conductivity and PH in before sowing and after harvesting soil of
Electrical conductivity (µmoh/cm)

PH
2012 2013 2012 2013
T1 g f c f c b f a
100.7 112.0 102.2 114.2 6.65 6.61 6.43 6.47
T2 e e a d c c e c
102.1 113.8 103.3 116.8 6.64 6.47 6.54 6.33
T3 d e b g a a e b
102.6 113.5 102.7 112.2 7.20 6.65 6.54 6.38
T4 b a a a d f d f
104.1 122.5 103.5 119.2 6.50 6.21 6.62 6.15
T5 f d b e c b c d
101.5 115.4 102.8 116.2 6.67 6.58 6.71 6.24
T6 a b a b b e b e
104.7 119.1 103.4 118.8 6.87 6.34 6.81 6.20
T7 c c b c c d a e
103.2 117.3 102.8 118.2 6.74 6.41 7.02 6.22
SEM± 0.06 0.24 0.12 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.005
CD AT 1.06 2.04 1.43 0.99 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.1
5%
CV%
0.25 0.40 0.2 0.1 0.77 0.45 0.53 0.29
LSD AT 0.19 0.73 0.36 0.17 0.10 0.03 0.04 0.01
5%
Table 4.38 Available nitrogen and available phosphorous in before sowing and after
Available nitrogen (mg kg-1) Available phosphorous (mg kg-1)

2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13
T1 g f e c c f e d
202.3 219.5 256.1 280.7 42.44 52.80 51.43 65.07
T2 e d c bc b e d d
210.7 241.3 263.3 291.0 45.33 57.10 52.40 67.07
T3 f e d bc c c e b
205.0 228.3 261.3 288.6 43.17 85.83 51.70 102.13
T4 a a b a a a d a
222.9 291.5 269.2 314.4 46.37 109.37 55.49 121.57
T5 d c b b e f c d
214.9 261.0 267.4 297.0 38.73 50.57 54.43 65.00
T6 b b a a ab b b b
220.2 276.1 272.2 314.2 46.17 94.37 55.90 107.33
T7 c b a bc d d a c
218.8 270.7 271.9 291.6 40.17 75.47 57.28 89.33
SEM± 0.33 1.89 0.64 4.14 0.29 1.29 0.18 2.11
CD AT 2.4 5.76 3.35 8.52 2.27 4.77 1.79 6.09
5%
CV%
0.3 1.3 0.4 2.4 1.2 3.0 0.6 4.2
LSD 1.01 5.83 1.98 12.75 0.90 3.99 0.57 6.52
AT 5%
[126]
Tables
Table 4.39 Available nitrogen and available phosphorous in before sowing and after
Available nitrogen (mg kg-1) Available phosphorous (mg kg-1)

2012 2013 2012 2013
T1 c c c e b d f e
190.4 273.9 221.3 274.8 111.2 165.7 119.1 151.5
T2 b b e b a c c b
195.7 284.0 215.8 312.0 114.5 173.2 123.0 213.6
T3 d b d c f f e d
187.8 280.9 217.6 302.2 95.5 115.2 120.1 178.0
T4 a a a a d a a b
198.5 295.4 224.8 318.3 101.1 188.3 125.3 222.4
T5 c b c f e e d c
192.5 283.6 221.1 273.1 99.7 145.1 121.9 199.6
T6 b a a b c a b a
194.8 294.7 224.0 312.9 106.0 189.0 123.9 260.5
T7 c b b d b b c d
191.0 284.7 222.7 288.0 111.5 177.4 123.2 167.5
SEM± 0.69 1.46 0.34 0.33 0.40 0.78 0.08 4.35
CD AT
5% 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.8 0.1 3.8
CV% 3.48 5.05 2.43 2.40 2.67 3.70 1.19 8.73
LSD AT 2.13 4.49 1.04 1.01 1.22 2.41 0.25 13.41
5%
Table 4.40 Available potassium and organic carbon in before sowing and after harvesting
Available potassium (mg kg-1) Organic carbon (%)

2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13
T1 b b e b f f c c
84.81 97.70 78.63 113.7 0.54 1.9 0.64 2.83
T2 d d d cd c d bc abc
70.27 81.34 81.29 103.2 0.62 2.25 0.73 2.89
T3 e f d c e e c bc
65.17 77.04 80.89 105.4 0.58 2.13 0.64 2.87
T4 a a b a a a ab a
95.77 126.13 85.67 148.3 0.69 2.79 0.80 2.96
T5 g g c e b c bc ab
62.73 73.21 83.60 96.0 0.64 2.53 0.74 2.92
T6 c c a de a b a ab
75.90 89.20 87.14 99.1 0.70 2.65 0.86 2.94
T7 f e b c d c c bc
63.80 79.30 84.77 107.6 0.59 2.52 0.69 2.86
SEM± 0.26 0.63 0.36 1.39 0.004 0.04 0.03 0.03
CD AT 2.13 3.33 2.51 4.94 0.29 0.81 0.75 0.67
5%
CV%
0.6 1.2 0.7 2.2 1.3 2.7 7.6 1.5
LSD AT 0.79 1.95 1.1 4.28 0.01 0.11 0.1 0.08
5%
[127]
Tables
Table 4.41 Available potassium and organic carbon in before transplantation and after
Available potassium (mg kg-1) Organic carbon (%)

2012 2013 2012 2013
T1 abc e e ab a b e ab
80.47 131.5 111.0 138.0 0.60 2.98 1.44 3.16
T2 bcd bc f b a b d ab
79.03 135.0 108.2 130.9 0.63 3.04 1.53 3.19
T3 d de d ab a b d b
77.53 132.3 114.0 134.1 0.59 2.91 1.51 3.13
T4 ab a b a b a a a
81.10 139.9 120.7 143.7 0.55 3.30 1.61 3.24
T5 cd bc c b d b cd a
78.60 135.0 115.7 132.6 0.48 3.05 1.54 3.23
T6 a b a ab bc b b ab
81.83 136.8 123.4 136.7 0.53 3.04 1.58 3.20
T7 a cd ab ab cd b bc b
81.53 134.1 121.8 138.9 0.50 3.02 1.56 3.13
SEM± 0.70 1.46 0.51 3.01 0.01 0.07 0.009 0.03
CD AT
5% 1.5 1.0 0.8 3.8 3.7 4.0 1.0 1.5
CV% 3.51 5.05 3.00 7.27 0.45 1.11 0.39 0.69
LSD AT 2.17 2.36 1.59 9.29 0.04 0.22 0.03 0.08
5%
Table 4.42 Copper and iron in before sowing and after harvesting soil of Mustard
Cu (mg kg-1) Fe (mg kg-1)

2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13
2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13 2011- 2012-13
12
T1 c d b d e e a e
1.81 2.96 1.22 2.17 13.54 19.17 17.48 20.16
T2 f f c e f d b f
1.34 1.55 1.17 1.7 12.29 20.11 16.30 19.81
T3 d g b e a f b g
1.71 1.43 1.23 1.72 13.96 18.54 16.73 19.75
T4 b a a a d a a a
1.83 3.55 1.29 3.56 13.57 21.39 17.59 22.94
T5 e e b c b cd b d
1.36 1.71 1.23 2.35 13.91 20.22 16.23 20.41
T6 a b a b c b b b
1.98 3.46 1.30 2.8 13.76 20.78 16.74 21.85
T7 g c a d a bc b c
1.12 3.02 1.32 2.14 13.97 20.59 16.41 21.07
SEM± 0.005 0.009 0.008 0.05 0.005 0.14 0.17 0.01
CD AT 5% 0.3 0.41 0.38 0.98 0.30 1.58 1.73 0.45
CV% 0.6 0.7 1.1 4.0 0.1 1.2 1.8 0.01
LSD AT 5% 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.17 0.02 0.44 0.53 0.04
[128]
Tables
Table 4.43 Copper and iron in before transplantation and after harvesting soil of Paddy
cultivation (Year 2012 and 2013)
Cu (mg kg-1) Fe (mg kg-1)

2012 2013 2012 2013
T1 a e c e a e a d
1.14 2.40 0.77 2.43 12.77 19.32 15.16 23.72
T2 a d abc d a d a e
0.77 2.57 1.39 2.63 12.77 20.07 15.34 23.34
T3 a d bc e a e a f
0.37 2.52 0.88 2.41 12.77 19.47 15.21 23.19
T4 a a abc a b a a a
0.42 3.64 1.46 3.35 12.6 22.53 15.64 24.37
T5 a b abc c d cd a c
1.15 3.54 1.34 2.81 12.21 20.13 15.40 23.89
T6 a a ab b c b a b
0.81 3.62 1.63 3.09 12.4 21.78 15.55 24.13
T7 a c a b b c a d
1.10 2.94 1.72 3.02 12.61 20.43 15.20 23.76
SEM± 0.30 0.02 0.25 0.04 0.02 0.10 0.15 0.03
CD AT 16.8 1.1 11.7 2.2 0.3 0.9 1.7 0.2
5%
CV%
2.30 0.19 2.07 0.8 0.6 1.34 1.61 0.22
LSD AT 0.93 0.08 0.75 0.1 0.06 0.31 0.45 0.09
5%
Table 4.44 Manganese and Zinc in before sowing and after harvesting soil of Mustard
Mn (mg kg-1) Zn (mg kg-1)

2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13
T1 a d a c c c f g
7.50 7.95 7.15 7.73 1.63 0.98 1.71 1.08
T2 c c c b e b e c
6.73 8.14 6.83 8.26 1.42 1.56 1.74 2.12
T3 d f e d b b c d
6.45 7.57 6.52 7.37 1.68 1.44 1.80 2.03
T4 b a c a a a a a
6.98 8.43 6.82 8.55 1.80 2.31 1.84 2.63
T5 d e e c d b g f
6.45 7.71 6.55 7.78 1.45 1.61 1.68 1.56
T6 b b b b g a d b
6.97 8.3 6.91 8.24 1.27 2.27 1.76 2.24
T7 cd g d d f b b e
6.61 7.35 6.71 7.48 1.33 1.52 1.82 1.76
SEM± 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.004 0.07 0.004 0.01
CD AT 1.15 0.53 0.66 0.98 0.26 1.08 0.27 0.47
5%
CV%
1.19 0.4 0.6 1.2 0.5 6.9 0.4 1.1
LSD AT 0.23 0.05 0.08 0.17 0.01 0.20 0.01 0.04
5%
[129]
Tables
Table 4.45 Manganese and Zinc in before transplantation and after harvesting soil of
Mn (mg kg-1) Zn (mg kg-1)

2012 2013 2012 2013
T1 d d a d b f e c
6.21 7.97 6.01 7.8 1.52 1.47 1.04 1.35
T2 a e a e c e d ab
6.30 7.82 5.99 7.47 1.50 1.54 1.32 2.06
T3 b f a ef a f b bc
6.27 7.70 6.06 7.43 1.54 1.44 1.72 1.5
T4 cd a a a c a d a
6.23 8.78 5.84 8.39 1.50 1.87 1.32 2.35
T5 d c a f d d a abc
6.21 8.46 5.88 7.34 1.46 1.65 1.84 1.83
T6 d b a b b b b a
6.22 8.65 6.1 8.27 1.52 1.76 1.72 2.22
T7 bc 7.77ef a c a c c a
6.26 6.07 8.0 1.54 1.69 1.52 2.16
SEM± 0.008 0.03 0.11 0.04 0.004 0.01 0.003 0.17
CD AT
5% 0.2 0.6 3.2 0.8 0.4 1.4 0.3 15.8
CV% 0.37 0.68 1.4 0.80 0.25 0.48 0.22 1.75
LSD AT 0.02 0.08 0.34 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.008 0.54
5%
[130]
Figures
20 120
18
100
16
14
Plant height (cm)

Root length (cm)
80
12
10 60
8
40
6
4
20
2
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 14.25 13.52 12.07 16.08 14.05 13.03 12.17 2011-12 76.83 87.2 80.72 102.08 88.58 94.83 93.3
2012-13 15.33 15.14 12.48 19.03 15.48 17.23 16.1 2012-13 80.67 78.29 79.77 107.44 78.9 99.26 95.68
Fig. 4.1 Root length (cm) on 60 DAS of Mustard Fig.4.2 Plant height (cm) on 60 DAS of Mustard
16 5
4.5
14
Dry weight of root and shoot (g)
4
Dry weight of leaves (g)
12
3.5
10 3
2.5
8
2
6
1.5
4 1
0.5
2
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 2011-12 1.62 2.28 2.13 4.13 2.88 3.48 3.04
2011-12 8.32 11.21 10.75 13.34 11.9 12.51 12.2
2012-13 2.15 2.89 2.61 4.49 3.22 3.75 3.51
2012-13 8.29 12.22 10.69 14.12 12.31 13.28 12.87
Fig. 4.3 Dry weight of root and shoot (g) on 45 Fig. 4.4 Dry weight of leaves (g) on 45 DAS of
DAS of Mustard Mustard
[131]
Figures
16 45
Dry weight of siliquae (g) 14 40
12 35
Angle of primary branching (ᵒ)

30
10
25
8
20
6
15
4
10
2 5
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 7.57 7.78 5.48 11.92 7.69 10.04 9.92 2011-12 39.1732.5734.3532.2536.3333.6738.17
2012-13 9.18 7.28 6.96 14.09 9.1 10.68 8.72 2012-13 26.9334.6740.2732.7334.2738.33 27.8
Fig. 4.5 Dry weight of siliquae (g) of Mustard Fig. 4.6 Angle of primary branching (º) of Mustard
45 4.7
40 4.6
Angle of secondary branching (ᵒ)
35 4.5
Siliquae length (cm)
4.4
30
4.3
25
4.2
20
4.1
15
4
10 3.9
5 3.8
0 3.7
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 38.5 34.3334.8335.3336.67 32.5 37.5 2011-12 4.1 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.4 4.2 4
2012-13 27.1334.0736.67 30.6 28.93 29.4 27.73 2012-13 4.11 4.32 4.06 4.56 4.22 4.36 4.24
Fig. 4.7 Angle of secondary branching (º) of Fig. 4.8 Siliquae length (cm) of Mustard
Mustard
[132]
Figures
1.8 24
1.6
23
1.4
No. of seeds per siliquae

Siliquae diameter (cm)
22
1.2
1 21
0.8 20
0.6
19
0.4
18
0.2
0 17
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.3 2011-12 20.1 20.77 21.8 22.9720.8321.7719.33
2012-13 1.57 1.59 1.6 1.61 1.51 1.59 1.54 2012-13 19.8 21.0322.1322.77 21 21.7719.37
Fig. 4.9 Siliquae diameter (cm) of Mustard Fig. 4.10 No. of seeds per siliquae of Mustard
70 3.5
60 3
No. of siliquae per plant
50 2.5
Test weight (g)
40 2
30 1.5
20 1
10 0.5
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 46.5651.1140.33 59 42.8954.4445.78 2011-12 2.53 2.68 2.57 2.72 2.6 2.55 2.43
2012-13 46.44 51 40.7857.1143.3347.8944.44 2012-13 2.64 2.76 2.56 2.98 2.61 2.53 2.39
Fig. 4.11 No. of siliquae per plant of Mustard Fig. 4.12 Test weight (g) of Mustard
[133]
Figures
1.8 3
1.6
2.5
1.4
Straw yield (t/ha)

Seed yield (t/ha)
1.2 2
1
1.5
0.8
0.6
1
0.4
0.5
0.2
0
0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 1.05 1.08 1.28 1.42 1.13 1.27 1.1 2011-12 1.78 2.15 2.08 2.28 1.92 2.38 2.2
2012-13 1.03 1.08 1.47 1.67 1.12 1.32 1.15 2012-13 1.65 2.22 1.7 2.47 1.75 2.53 1.68
Fig. 4.13 Seed yield (t/ha) of Mustard Fig. 4.14 Straw yield (t/ha) of Mustard
50 120
45
100
40
Harvest index (%)
35 80
Oil content (%)
30
25 60
20
40
15
10 20
5
0
0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 54.8259.4258.0771.2754.9964.9854.25
2011-12 32.1 33.6 33.9 40.1 37.9 35.8 34.7
2012-13 63.3557.9286.99113.369.4186.3173.97
2012-13 37.2 39 37.3 46.7 42.5 45.1 44.5
Fig. 4.15 Oil content (%)of Mustard Fig. 4.16 Harvest index (%) of Mustard
[134]
Figures
10 9
9 8
8 7
Leaf area ratio (m2/g)

7
6
Leaf area index
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2 2
1 1
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 1.59 2.14 1.77 4.32 2.59 3.34 2.95 2011-12 4.08 5.09 4.4 7.68 5.59 6.29 6.94
2012-13 6.68 8.3 7.94 9.48 7.21 8.84 7.17 2012-13 2.63 3.29 2.93 7.63 4.59 6.59 5.57
Fig. 4.17 Leaf area index (45 DAS) of Mustard Fig. 4.18 Leaf area ratio (m2/g) (45 DAS) of Mustard
14 12
12 10
Crop growth rate (g/m2/day)
10
8
8
6
LAD
6
4
4
2
2
0
0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 6.79 7.97 7.12 11.46 8.33 9.16 8.76 2011-12 4.23 5.03 3.88 10.54 6.75 9.09 7.69
2012-13 7.59 6.59 6.24 10.91 5.99 8.39 6.95 2012-13 5.06 6.72 5.13 10.49 8.11 9.21 7.99
Fig. 4.19 Leaf area duration (45-60 DAS) of Fig. 4.20 Crop growth rate (g/m2/day) (45-60 DAS) of
Mustard Mustard
[135]
Figures
3 0.14
0.12
2.5
0.1
NAR (g/m2/day)
RGR (g/m2/day)
2
0.08
1.5
0.06
1
0.04
0.5
0.02
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 0.32 0.89 0.67 2.41 0.97 1.79 1.69 2011-12 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.09 0.05 0.06 0.06
2012-13 0.17 0.13 0.09 0.21 0.14 0.16 0.15 2012-13 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.06
Fig. 4.21 Net assimilation rate (g/m2/day) (45-60 Fig. 4.22 Relative growth rate (g/m2/day) (45-60
DAS) of Mustard DAS) of Mustard
3.5 30
Chlorophyll content (mg/g FW)
Photosynthetic Rate (µmol/m2/S)
3 25
2.5
20
2
15
1.5
10
1
0.5 5
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 2.53 1.26 2.36 3.26 2.44 2.48 1.96 2011-12 19.15 22.18 20.05 24.03 23.12 23.65 23.52
2012-13 1.42 1.41 1.4 1.92 1.39 1.69 1.55 2012-13 22.58 23.43 22.74 25.38 24.12 24.67 24.5
Fig. 4.23 Chlorophyll content (mg/g FW) (45 DAS) Fig. 4.24 Photosynthetic rate (µmol/m2/S) (45 DAS)
of Mustard of Mustard
[136]
Figures
18 1
16 0.9
14 0.8
0.7
Proline (mg/g FW)

12
0.6
Sugar (mg/g FW)
10
0.5
8
0.4
6
0.3
4 0.2
2 0.1
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 6.52 9.21 7.97 13.71 9.48 12.7411.97 2011-12 0.636 0.845 0.711 0.141 0.649 0.114 0.939
2012-13 4.93 7.26 6.79 16.32 8.96 11.48 8.3 2012-13 0.351 0.942 0.618 0.148 0.746 0.139 0.893
Fig. 4.25 Soluble sugar (mg/g FW) (45 DAS) of Fig. 4.26 Proline content (mg/g FW) (45 DAS) of
Mustard Mustard
80 140
Bacterial colony (CFU/g of dry soil)
70 120
Bacterial colony (CFU/g of soil)
60
100
50
80
40
60
30
40
20
10 20
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 61.7 64.7 60.7 65.5 62.3 62 60.2 2011-12 68 90 82.67 124.3 97 130.7 104.7
2012-13 50.3 72.3 70.5 73.3 72.7 69.6 72.4 2012-13 58 92 83.33 129 106 129.3 102
Fig. 4.27 Bacterial colony count (CFU/g of dry soil) Fig. 4.28 Bacterial colony count (CFU/g of dry soil)
(before sowing) of Mustard (after harvesting) of Mustard
[137]
Figures
12 30
Fungal colony (CFU/g of dry soil)

Fungal colony (CFU/g of dry soil)
10 25
8 20
6 15
4 10
2 5
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 9.1 9.77 9.17 8.83 9 9.37 9 2011-12 11 13.67 12.33 25.67 17.67 19.67 14.33
2012-13 7.17 7.83 7 8.37 8.5 8.17 8 2012-13 9.33 15.67 9.67 21.33 15.67 21.33 17.33
Fig. 4.29 Fungal colony count (CFU/g of dry soil) Fig. 4.30 Fungal colony count (CFU/g of dry soil)
(before sowing) of Mustard (after harvesting) of Mustard
1.6 1.8
1.4 1.6
1.4
1.2
Specific gravity (g/cc)
1.2
1
1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 1.16 1.3 1.26 1.38 1.29 1.38 1.34 2011-12 1.2 1.33 1.29 1.4 1.35 1.4 1.38
2012-13 1.16 1.08 1.23 1.14 1.12 1.11 1.17 2012-13 1.31 1.47 1.41 1.54 1.45 1.49 1.41
Fig. 4.31 Specific gravity (g/cc) (before sowing ) of Fig. 4.32 Specific gravity (g/cc) (after harvesting) of
Mustard Mustard
[138]
Figures
8 12
7
10
6
Moisture content (%)

8
5
4 6
3
4
2
2
1
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 6.43 6.86 6.36 7.48 6.81 6.67 6.79 2011-12 8.17 8.4 8.33 10.62 9.16 9.93 9.73
2012-13 2.87 4.07 3.45 4.53 2.23 2.24 4.46 2012-13 9.07 9.99 11.04 11.35 11.17 8.14 9.02
Fig. 4.33 Moisture content (%) (before sowing) of Fig. 4.34 Moisture content (%) (after harvesting) of
mustard mustard
1.8 0.9
1.6 0.8
1.4 0.7
Bulk density (g/cc)
Bulk density (g/cc)
1.2 0.6
1 0.5
0.8 0.4
0.6 0.3
0.4 0.2
0.2 0.1
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 1.11 1.16 1.12 1.31 1.18 1.26 1.22 2011-12 0.79 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.8 0.82 0.78
2012-13 1.49 1.44 1.54 1.65 1.32 1.36 1.51 2012-13 0.73 0.58 0.71 0.62 0.54 0.58 0.54
Fig. 4.35 Bulk density (g/cc) (before sowing) of Fig. 4.36 Bulk density (g/cc) (after harvesting) of
mustard mustard
[139]
Figures
3 2.2
2.5 2.1
Particle density (g/cc)

2 2
1.5 1.9
1 1.8
0.5 1.7
0 1.6
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 2.42 2.42 2.38 2.11 2.42 2.5 2.21 2011-12 1.89 1.92 1.83 2.16 1.92 1.98 1.96
2012-13 2.41 2.4 2.34 2.58 2.43 2.57 2.56 2012-13 1.89 1.93 1.84 2.15 1.91 2.03 1.96
Fig. 4.37 Particle density (g/cc) (before sowing) of Fig. 4.38 Particle density (g/cc) (after harvesting) of
mustard mustard
60 80
70
50
60
40
50
Porosity (%)
Porosity (%)
30 40
30
20
20
10
10
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 54.1352.1352.8740.7251.1749.67 49.4 2011-12 58.11 57.86 55.37 62.29 58.4 58.68 59.97
2012-13 38.3139.9434.4319.8744.8345.1530.14 2012-13 61.27 60.45 58.33 71.05 61.85 64.88 62.62
Fig. 4.39 Porosity (%) (before sowing) of mustard Fig. 4.40 Porosity (%) (after harvesting) of mustard
[140]
Figures
46 52
45 50
44
48
WHC (%)
WHC (%)
43
46
42
44
41
40 42
39 40
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 43.1442.1842.84 43.4 41.2341.6142.41 2011-12 44.16 44.93 44.53 46.51 43.47 45.83 44.83
2012-13 44.3344.8943.3145.2644.92 44.6 44 2012-13 45.63 46.39 45.82 50.13 46.51 48.94 47.25
Fig. 4.41 Water holding capacity (%) (before Fig. 4.42 Water holding capacity (%) (after
sowing) of mustard harvesting) of mustard
25 40
24 39
Soil temperature (ºC)
Soil temperature (ºC)
23 38
22 37
21 36
20 35
19 34
18 33
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 23.6724.23 22.8 24.43 23.7 22.5324.37 2011-12 36.37 36.83 35.47 38.13 36.17 37.83 37.03
2012-13 23.8324.2320.37 22.5 21.7 21.4322.63 2012-13 37.17 37.87 35.63 38.83 36.13 37.9 37.3
Fig. 4.43 Soil temperature (ºC) (before sowing) of Fig. 4.44 Soil temperature (ºC) (after harvesting) of
mustard mustard
[141]
Figures
125 140
120 120
115 100
EC (µmoh/cm)
EC (µmoh/cm
110 80
105 60
100 40
95 20
90 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 111.8 108.2 104.8 118.9 109.5 114.8 112.1 2011-12 116.5 109.4 107.1 123.5 113.8 117.7 115.7
2012-13 104 102.4 110.8 111.8 113.1 109.9 110.7 2012-13 122.7 116.1 114 127.8 106.1 128.2 126.3
Fig. 4.45 Soil electrical conductivity (µmoh/cm) Fig. 4.46 Soil electrical conductivity (µmoh/cm) (after
(before sowing) of mustard harvesting) of mustard
7 6.4
6.35
6
6.3
5 6.25
6.2
4
pH
pH
6.15
3
6.1
2 6.05
6
1
5.95
0 5.9
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 6.01 6.06 5.96 6.2 6.11 6.26 6.26 2011-12 6.06 6.18 6.06 6.28 6.21 6.28 6.3
2012-13 5.85 5.89 5.72 5.91 5.8 5.13 5.64 2012-13 6.11 6.24 6.1 6.34 6.27 6.32 6.3
Fig. 4.47 Soil PH (before sowing) of mustard Fig. 4.48 Soil PH (after harvesting) of mustard
[142]
Figures
300 350
300
250
Available N (mg/kg)
Available N (mg/kg)
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 202.3 210.7 205 222.9 214.9 220.2 218.8 2011-12 219.5 241.3 228.3 291.5 261 276.1 270.7
2012-13 256.1 263.3 261.3 269.2 267.4 272.2 271.9 2012-13 280.7 291 288.6 314.4 297 314.2 291.6
Fig. 4.49 Available nitrogen (mg/kg) (before Fig. 4.50 Available nitrogen (mg/kg) (after
70 140
60 120
50 100
Available P (mg/kg)
Available P (mg/kg)
40 80
30 60
20 40
10 20
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 42.44 45.33 43.17 46.37 38.73 46.17 40.17 2011-12 52.8 57.1 85.83 109.37 50.57 94.37 75.47
2012-13 51.43 52.4 51.7 55.49 54.43 55.9 57.28 2012-13 65.07 67.07 102.13 121.57 65 107.33 89.33
Fig. 4.51 Available phosphorous (mg/kg) (before Fig. 4.52 Available phosphorous (mg/kg) (after
[143]
Figures
120 160
140
100
120
Available K (mg/g)
Available K (mg/kg)
80
100
60 80
60
40
40
20
20
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 84.81 70.27 65.17 95.77 62.73 75.9 63.8 2011-12 97.7 81.34 77.04 126.13 73.21 89.2 79.3
2012-13 78.63 81.29 80.89 85.67 83.6 87.14 84.77 2012-13 113.7 103.2 105.4 148.3 96 99.1 107.6
Fig. 4.53 Available potassium (mg/kg) (before Fig. 4.54 Available potassium (mg/kg) (after
1 3.5
0.9
3
0.8
2.5
0.7
Organic carbon (%)
Organic carbon (%)
0.6 2
0.5
1.5
0.4
0.3 1
0.2
0.5
0.1
0
0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 1.9 2.25 2.13 2.79 2.53 2.65 2.52
2011-12 0.54 0.62 0.58 0.69 0.64 0.7 0.59
2012-13 2.83 2.89 2.87 2.96 2.92 2.94 2.86
2012-13 0.64 0.73 0.64 0.8 0.74 0.86 0.69
Fig. 4.56 Organic carbon (%) (after harvesting) of

Fig. 4.55 Organic carbon (%) (before sowing) of
mustard
mustard
[144]
Figures
2.5 4
3.5
2
3
2.5
Cu (mg/kg)
Cu (mg/g)
1.5
1
1.5
1
0.5
0.5
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 1.81 1.34 1.71 1.83 1.36 1.98 1.12 2011-12 2.96 1.55 1.43 3.55 1.71 3.46 3.02
2012-13 1.22 1.17 1.23 1.29 1.23 1.3 1.32 2012-13 2.17 1.7 1.72 3.56 2.35 2.8 2.14
Fig. 4.57 Copper (mg/kg) (before sowing) of Fig. 4.58 Copper (mg/kg) (after harvesting) of
mustard mustard
20 25
18
16 20
14
Fe (mg/kg)
Fe (mg/kg)
12 15
10
8 10
4 5
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 13.54 12.29 13.96 13.57 13.91 13.76 13.97 2011-12 19.17 20.11 18.54 21.39 20.22 20.78 20.59
2012-13 17.48 16.3 16.73 17.59 16.23 16.74 16.41 2012-13 20.16 19.81 19.75 22.94 20.41 21.85 21.07
Fig. 4.59 Iron (mg/kg) (before sowing) of mustard Fig. 4.60 Iron (mg/kg) (after harvesting) of mustard
[145]
Figures
7.6 8.8
7.4 8.6
8.4
7.2
8.2
7
8
Mn (mg/kg)
Mn (mg/kg)
6.8 7.8
6.6 7.6
7.4
6.4
7.2
6.2
7
6 6.8
5.8 6.6
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 7.5 6.73 6.45 6.98 6.45 6.97 6.61 2011-12 7.95 8.14 7.57 8.43 7.71 8.3 7.35
2012-13 7.15 6.83 6.52 6.82 6.55 6.91 6.71 2012-13 7.73 8.26 7.37 8.55 7.78 8.24 7.48
Fig. 4.61 Manganese (mg/kg) (before sowing) of Fig. 4.62 Manganese (mg/kg) (after harvesting) of
mustard mustard
2 3
1.8
2.5
1.6
1.4
2
Zn (mg/kg)
Zn (mg/kg)
1.2
1 1.5
0.8
1
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.2
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 1.63 1.42 1.68 1.8 1.45 1.27 1.33 2011-12 0.98 1.56 1.44 2.31 1.61 2.27 1.52
2012-13 1.71 1.74 1.8 1.84 1.68 1.76 1.82 2012-13 1.08 2.12 2.03 2.63 1.56 2.24 1.76
Fig. 4.63 Zinc (mg/kg) (before sowing) of mustard Fig. 4.64 Zinc (mg/kg) (after harvesting) of mustard
[146]
Figures
2.5
Cost:benefit ratio
1.5
0.5
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 1.48 1.35 1.65 1.8 1.49 1.53 1.37
2012-13 1.46 1.35 1.88 2.12 1.47 1.59 1.44
Fig. 4.65 Cost:benefit ratio of mustard
[147]
Figures
25 100
90
20 80
70
Plant height (cm)

Root length (cm)
15 60
50
10 40
30
5 20
10
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 15.27 17.4 14.4 22.13 17.03 19 16.2 2011-12 85.23 85.57 80.9 93.3 83 84.37 83.23
2012-13 15.08 18.22 14.68 23.17 16.77 20.93 16.52 2012-13 79.72 83.52 74 95.15 79.8 88.53 84.05
Fig. 4.66 Root length (cm) on 60 DAT of paddy Fig. 4.67 Plant height (cm) on 60 DAT of paddy
25 20
18
Dry weight of root and shoot (g)
20 16
Dry weight of leaves (g)
14
15 12
10
10 8
5 4
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 16.42 18.3 17.01 22.56 18.89 20.85 20.33 2011-12 9.8 7.88 7.1 15.13 11.23 13.39 12.37
2012-13 15.53 17.32 15.68 22.35 17.84 20.35 18.82 2012-13 10.96 13.46 10.83 18.34 15.04 16.79 15.54
Fig. 4.68 Dry weight of root and shoot (g) on 45 Fig. 4.69 Dry weight of leaves (g) on 45 DAT of
DAT of paddy paddy
[148]
Figures
25 30
25
No. of effective tiller per hill
20
Panicle length (cm)

20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 13.22 15.89 13.67 18.22 13.33 16.56 15.33 2011-12 21.74 21 19.29 23.76 21.53 22.81 20.84
2012-13 14.11 15.11 14.33 22.11 16.44 19.11 16.78 2012-13 22.86 22.59 20.34 24.29 23.14 22.34 22.46
Fig. 4.70 No. of effective tiller per hill of paddy Fig. 4.71 Panicle length (cm) of paddy
45 40
Percentage of chaffy grains per panicle (%)
40 35
Weight of 10 panicles per plot (g)
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5 5
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 32.7 33.87 31.6 39.05 29.92 35.76 32.77 2011-12 27.48 27.76 34.96 17.7 23.43 20.55 23.13
2012-13 32.03 32.87 27.94 40.38 31.25 36.43 33.77 2012-13 30.67 30.67 35.23 21.51 32.86 24.69 24.23
Fig. 4.72 Weight of 10 panicles per plot (g) of Fig. 4.73 Percentage of chaffy grains per panicle
paddy (%) of paddy
[149]
Figures
60 180
160
No. of filled grain per panicle

50
No. of chaffy per panicle
140
40 120
100
30
80
20 60
40
10
20
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 49.67 45.57 48.9 36.1 42.93 39.6 43.37 2011-12 131.1 134.8 91 167.5 140.2 153 144.1
2012-13 55.43 53.23 53.5 37.37 48.57 41.83 46.13 2012-13 126 120.4 100 154.1 152.3 137.9 144.2
Fig. 4.74 No. of chaffy per panicle of paddy Fig. 4.75 No. of filled grain per panicle of paddy
30 10
9
25
8
7
Grain yield (t/ha)
20
Test weight (g)
15 5
4
10 3
2
5
1
0
0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 20.42 20.71 19.6 23.99 22.69 23.12 22.62 2011-12 7.53 7.55 7.28 9.38 7.82 8.33 7.23
2012-13 20.27 19.02 18.3 24.92 23.95 23.29 24.13 2012-13 6.72 6.63 6.6 9 6.5 8.43 7.63
Fig. 4.76 Test weight (g) of paddy Fig. 4.77 Grain yield (t/ha) of paddy
[150]
Figures
16 30
14
25
12
Biological yield (t/ha)

Straw yield (t/ha)
20
10
8 15
6
10
4
5
2
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 9.87 9.88 9.03 13.82 10.27 12.95 10.7 2011-12 17.4 17.43 16.32 23.2 18.08 21.28 17.93
2012-13 8.53 8.88 8.37 14.82 9.93 13.62 13.33 2012-13 15.25 15.52 14.97 23.82 16.43 22.05 20.97
Fig. 4.78 Straw yield (t/ha) of paddy Fig. 4.79 Biological yield (t/ha) of paddy
50 70
45
60
40
35 50
Harvest index (%)
30
40
LAI
25
30
20
15 20
10
10
5
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 36.99 35.77 34.76 45.44 41.9 42.85 40.35 2011-12 39.85 45.22 41.41 64.42 41.2 52.2 50.66
2012-13 37.01 39.07 37.83 45.11 43.09 43.62 43.55 2012-13 42.9 40.69 35.04 54.83 26.58 47.62 43.04
Fig. 4.80 Harvest index (%) of paddy Fig. 4.81 Leaf area index (45 DAT) of paddy
[151]
Figures
0.014 160
0.012
140
120
0.01
100
LAR (m2/g)
0.008
LAD
80
0.006
60
0.004
40
0.002 20
0
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.012 0.006 0.006 0.007 2011-12 84.3 98.7 84.5 133.9 96.7 122.5 103.8
2012-13 0.008 0.005 0.007 0.005 0.003 0.005 0.005 2012-13 61.91 59.4 62.54 78.87 46.84 61.5 64.8
Fig. 4.82 Leaf area ratio (m2/g) (45 DAT) of Fig. 4.83 Leaf area duration (45-60 DAT) of
paddy paddy
18 4.5
16 4
14 3.5
NAR (g/m2/day)
3
CGR (g/m2/day)
12
10 2.5
8 2
6
1.5
1
4
0.5
2
0
0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 16.68 14.79 14.33 16.57 11.77 15.34 14.14 2011-12 1.25 1.56 0.96 3.49 1.33 1.66 1.07
2012-13 1.74 6.42 8.03 15.48 2.58 6.32 1.74 2012-13 1.14 1.55 1.81 3.84 0.84 1.52 0.39
Fig. 4.84 Crop growth rate (g/m2/day) (45-60 Fig. 4.85 Net assimilation rate (g/m2/day) (45-60
DAT) of paddy DAT) of paddy
[152]
Figures
0.016 6
0.014
Chlorophyll content (mg/g FW)

5
0.012
4
RGR (g/m2/day)
0.01
0.008 3
0.006
2
0.004
1
0.002
0
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 0.01 0.009 0.009 0.007 0.007 0.008 0.008 2011-12 2.68 2.88 2.28 4.3 3.11 3.58 3.28
2012-13 0.007 0.007 0.012 0.015 0.003 0.008 0.002
2012-13 3.3 3.63 3.05 5.36 3.6 4.35 3.86
Fig. 4.86 Relative growth rate (g/m2/day) (45-60

Fig. 4.87 Total chlorophyll content (mg/g FW) (45
DAT) of paddy
DAT) of paddy
35 20
18
Photosynthetic rate (µmol/g/s)
30
16
Soluble sugar (mg/g)
25 14
12
20
10
15
8
10 6
4
5
2
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 24.9 26.93 26.49 30.97 28.49 29.86 29.3 2011-12 8.42 10.98 7.73 16.17 9.75 13.97 12.07
2012-13 27.91 28.36 27.06 31.04 29.07 29.43 29.22 2012-13 9.84 11.66 9.61 17.28 12.54 15.15 13.32
Fig. 4.88 Photosynthetic rate (µmol/g/s) (45 Fig. 4.89 Total soluble sugar (mg/g) (45 DAT) of
DAT) of paddy paddy
[153]
Figures
0.35 9
8
0.3
7

0.25
6
Proline (mg/g)
0.2 5
4
0.15
3
0.1
2
0.05 1
0
0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 0.271 0.179 0.23 0.049 0.186 0.055 0.141 2011-12 4.68 4.28 5.02 6.43 3.98 4.45 3.04
2012-13 0.297 0.172 0.267 0.04 0.177 0.054 0.156 2012-13 7.15 7.61 7.38 7.69 7.67 7.81 7.57
Fig. 4.90 Proline content (mg/g) (45 DAT) of Fig. 4.91 Moisture content (%) (before
paddy transplantation) of paddy
12 1.14
1.12
10
1.1
1.08
Bulk density (g/cc)
8
1.06
6 1.04
1.02
4
1
2 0.98
0.96
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 0.94
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 6.12 6.81 7.12 8.23 5.12 7.24 6.65 2011-12 1.03 1.05 1.01 1.04 1.1 1.07 1.06
2012-13 8.11 9.23 8.67 10.6 9.12 10.3 10.1 2012-13 1.12 1.1 1.12 1.11 1.09 1.04 1.11
Fig. 4.92 Moisture content (%) (after Fig. 4.93 Bulk density (g/cc) (before
harvesting) of paddy transplantation) of paddy
[154]
Figures
0.9 3
0.8
2.5
0.7

Bulk density (g/cc)
0.6 2
0.5
1.5
0.4
0.3 1
0.2
0.5
0.1
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 0.69 0.64 0.61 0.71 0.66 0.68 0.61 2011-12 2.41 2.26 2.55 2.52 2.36 2.19 2.09
2012-13 0.77 0.56 0.67 0.63 0.68 0.75 0.71 2012-13 2.18 2.22 2.28 2.28 2.21 2.25 2.29
Fig. 4.94 Bulk density (g/cc) (after harvesting) of Fig. 4.95 Particle density (g/cc) (before
3 70
60
2.5
50
2
Porosity (%)
40
1.5
30
1
20
0.5 10
0
0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 56.4 52.7 59.84 58.83 52.38 50.38 47.08
2011-12 2.37 2.23 2.52 2.53 2.31 2.16 1.99
2012-13 48.54 50.3 50.81 51.24 50.45 53.56 51.46
2012-13 2.15 2.21 2.27 2.26 2.19 2.23 2.27
Fig. 4.97 Porosity (%) (before transplantation) of

Fig. 4.96 Particle density (g/cc) (after
paddy
harvesting) of paddy
[155]
Figures
78 44
76 43.5
74 43
72 42.5
Porosity (%)
70 42
WHC (%)
68 41.5
66 41
64 40.5
62 40
60 39.5
58 39
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 70.75 71.11 75.82 72.04 71.29 68.57 69.62 2011-12 41.91 40.55 41.33 40.84 41.45 41.75 42.3
2012-13 64.29 74.77 70.48 72.31 69.06 66.27 68.91 2012-13 43.64 42.56 42.42 42.6 43.22 43.22 42.77
Fig. 4.98 Porosity (%) (after harvesting) of Fig. 4.99 Water holding capacity (%) (before
47 1.6
46 1.4
1.2
45
1
WHC (%)
44
0.8
43
0.6
42
0.4
41
0.2
40 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 42.34 43.53 42.7 45.49 42.17 44.97 43.27
2011-12 1.19 1.11 1.09 1.44 1.09 1.16 1.16
2012-13 44.12 45.11 43.22 46.24 43.75 45.83 43.93
2012-13 1.28 1.3 1.3 1.36 1.33 1.33 1.33
Fig. 4.100 Water holding capacity (%) (after
harvesting) of paddy Fig. 4.101 Specific gravity (g/cc) (before
transplantation) of paddy
[156]
Figures
1.6 42
1.4 41
1.2
40
Temperature (ºC)
1
39
0.8
38
0.6
0.4 37
0.2 36
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 35
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 1.22 1.14 1.13 1.49 1.12 1.2 1.19 2011-12 40.07 39.37 41.33 38.7 37.73 40.47 38.07
2012-13 1.31 1.34 1.33 1.4 1.35 1.38 1.36 2012-13 39.73 39.03 40 39.37 38.4 41.13 39.4
Fig. 4.102 Specific gravity (g/cc) (after Fig. 4.103 Soil temperature (ºC) (before
harvesting) transplantation)
38 45
Bacteria colony count (CFU/g of dry soil)
40
37
35
Temperature (ºC)
36 30
25
35
20
34 15
10
33
5
0
32 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 32 39.07 33.83 33.33 31.43 27.97 30.83
2011-12 36.87 34.87 36.47 33.97 36.87 34.4 35.33
2012-13 31.87 28.67 39 34.67 31.43 37.57 31.73
2012-13 37.27 35.13 37.07 34.63 36.77 35.63 36
Fig. 4.105 Soil bacteria colony count (CFU/g of

Fig.4.104 Soil temperature (ºC) (after
dry soil) (before transplantation)
harvesting)
[157]
Figures
160 12
Fungal colony count (CFU/g of dry soil)

Bacteria colony count (CFU/g of dry soil)
140
10
120
8
100
6
80
60 4
40
2
20
0
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 70.7 86.6 79.27 121.9 101.1 107.83 103.3
2011-12 8.03 7.6 7.37 8.63 10.1 7.9 7.63
2012-13 51.73 88.9 66.83 134.67 81.43 127.57 118.4 2012-13 7.07 7 7.03 8.43 6.1 7 5.47
Fig. 4.106 Soil bacteria colony count (CFU/g of Fig. 4.107 Soil fungal colony count (CFU/g of dry
dry soil) (after harvesting) of paddy soil) (before transplantation) of paddy
12 105
Fungal colony count (CFU/g of dry soil)
104
10
103
8
EC (µmoh/cm)
102
6
101
4
100
2
99
0 98
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 8.03 7.6 7.37 8.63 10.1 7.9 7.63 2011-12 100.7 102.1 102.6 104.1 101.5 104.7 103.2
2012-13 7.07 7 7.03 8.43 6.1 7 5.47 2012-13 102.2 103.3 102.7 103.5 102.8 103.4 102.8
Fig. 4.108 Soil fungal colony count (CFU/g of Fig. 4.109 Soil electrical conductivity (µmoh/cm)
dry soil) (after harvesting) of paddy (before transplantation) of paddy
[158]
Figures
124 7
122
6.8
120
118 6.6
EC (µmoh/cm)
116
PH
6.4
114
6.2
112
110
6
108
5.8
106 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 6.76 6.68 6.28 6.54 6.8 6.92 6.83
2011-12 112 113.8 113.5 122.5 115.4 119.1 117.3
2012-13 6.68 6.64 6.62 6.59 6.61 6.59 6.63
2012-13 114.2 116.8 112.2 119.2 116.2 118.8 118.2
Fig. 4.110 Soil electrical conductivity (µmoh/cm) Fig. 4.111 Soil PH (before transplantation) of
(after harvesting) of paddy paddy
6.7 230
6.6
220
6.5
Available N (mg/kg)
210
6.4
6.3 200
PH
6.2
190
6.1
180
6
5.9 170
5.8
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 160
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 6.61 6.47 6.65 6.21 6.58 6.34 6.41
2011-12 190.4 195.7 187.8 198.5 192.5 194.8 191
2012-13 6.43 6.34 6.54 6.14 6.48 6.25 6.23
2012-13 221.3 215.8 217.6 224.8 221.1 224 222.7
Fig. 4.112 Soil PH (after harvesting) of paddy Fig. 4.113 Available nitrogen (mg/kg) (before
[159]
Figures
330 140
320
120
310
100
Available N (mg/kg)
Available P (mg/kg)
300
80
290
60
280
40
270
20
260
250 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 273.9 284 280.9 295.4 283.6 294.7 284.7 2011-12 111.2 114.5 95.5 101.1 99.7 106 111.5
2012-13 274.8 312 302.2 318.3 273.1 312.9 288 2012-13 119.1 123 120.1 125.3 121.9 123.9 123.2
Fig. 4.114 Available nitrogen (mg/kg) (after Fig. 4.115 Available phosphorous (mg/kg) (before
300 140
120
250
Available P (mg/kg)
100
Available K (mg/kg)
200
80
150
60
100
40
50
20
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 165.7 173.2 115.2 188.3 145.1 189 177.4
2011-12 80.47 79.03 77.53 81.1 78.6 81.83 81.53
2012-13 151.5 213.6 178 222.4 199.6 260.5 167.5
2012-13 111 108.2 114 120.7 115.7 123.4 121.8
Fig. 4.116 Available phosphorous (mg/kg) (after

Fig. 4.117 Available Potassium (mg/kg) (before
[160]
Figures
145 1.8
1.6
140
1.4
Organic carbon (%)

Available K (mg/kg)
1.2
135
1
0.8
130
0.6
0.4
125
0.2
120
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 131.5 135 132.3 139.9 135 136.8 134.1 2011-12 0.6 0.63 0.59 0.55 0.48 0.53 0.5
2012-13 138 130.9 134.1 143.7 132.6 136.7 138.9 2012-13 1.44 1.53 1.51 1.61 1.54 1.58 1.56
Fig. 4.118 Available potassium (mg/kg) (after Fig. 4.119 Organic carbon (%) (before
3.4 2
1.8
3.3
1.6
3.2
Organic carbon (%)
1.4
Cu (mg/kg)
1.2
3.1
1
3
0.8
2.9 0.6
0.4
2.8
0.2
2.7 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 2.98 3.04 2.91 3.3 3.05 3.04 3.02 2011-12 1.14 0.77 0.37 0.42 1.15 0.81 1.1
2012-13 3.16 3.19 3.13 3.24 3.23 3.2 3.13 2012-13 0.77 1.39 0.88 1.46 1.34 1.63 1.72
Fig. 4.120 Organic carbon (%) (after harvesting) Fig. 4.121 Available copper (mg/kg) (before
of paddy transplantation) of paddy
[161]
Figures
4 18
3.5 16
14
3
12
2.5
Cu (mg/kg)
Fe (mg/kg)
10
2
8
1.5
6
1
4
0.5 2
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 2.4 2.57 2.52 3.64 3.54 3.62 2.94 2011-12 12.77 12.77 12.77 12.6 12.21 12.4 12.61
2012-13 15.16 15.34 15.21 15.64 15.4 15.55 15.2
2012-13 2.43 2.63 2.41 3.35 2.81 3.09 3.02
Fig. 4.122 Available copper (mg/kg) (after Fig. 4.123 Available iron (mg/kg) (before
30 6.4
6.3
25
6.2
20
6.1
Mn (mg/kg)
Fe (mg/kg)
15 6
5.9
10
5.8
5 5.7
5.6
0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 19.32 20.07 19.47 22.53 20.13 21.78 20.43 2011-12 6.21 6.3 6.27 6.23 6.21 6.22 6.26
2012-13 23.72 23.34 23.19 24.37 23.89 24.13 23.76 2012-13 6.01 5.99 6.06 5.84 5.88 6.1 6.07
Fig. 4.124 Available iron (mg/kg) (after Fig. 4.125 Available manganese (mg/kg) (before
[162]
Figures
9 2
1.8
8.5 1.6
1.4
Mn (mg/kg)
Zn (mg/kg)
1.2
1
7.5 0.8
0.6
7 0.4
0.2
6.5
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 7.97 7.82 7.7 8.78 8.46 8.65 7.77
2011-12 1.52 1.5 1.54 1.5 1.46 1.52 1.54
2012-13 7.8 7.47 7.43 8.39 7.34 8.27 8
2012-13 1.04 1.32 1.72 1.32 1.84 1.72 1.52
Fig. 4.126 Available manganese (mg/kg) (after

Fig. 4.127 Available zinc (mg/kg) (before
2.5 3.5
3
2
2.5
1.5
Zn (mg/kg)
2
Cost:benefit ratio
1 1.5
1
0.5
0.5
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
2011-12 1.47 1.54 1.44 1.87 1.65 1.76 1.69 2011-12 2.44 2.49 2.4 3.09 2.56 2.73 2.36
2012-13 1.35 2.06 1.5 2.35 1.83 2.22 2.16 2012-13 2.17 2.19 2.18 2.99 2.56 2.77 2.53
Fig. 4.128 Available zinc (mg/kg) (after Fig. 4.129 Cost:benefit ratio of paddy
[163]
Summary and Conclusion
T his research work was undertaken with the following objectives of i) To develop an
agrotechnology from the municipal waste of Burdwan town, ii) application of this
vermicompost on two crops in relation to its growth, physiology and yield, iii) to study the
impact of vermicompost on soil health, soil biodiversity and carbon conservation in old alluvial
soil of Burdwan, West Bengal and iv) to inoculate the technology among the farmers.
Reviewing the previous work, we understand that vermicompost, Azotobacter and phosphate
solubilizing bacteria can substitute chemical fertilizer to some extent along with soil health and
biodiversity. With this background knowledge, this experiment was conducted to find out how
much chemical fertilizer can be supplemented by vermicompost and bio-fertilizer for successful
mustard and paddy cultivation in winter season in case of mustard and in rainy season for paddy.
To find out the best combination of inorganic, organic and bio-fertilizer doses, growth and yield
parameters were recorded. For morpho-physiological parameters viz. leaf area index, leaf area
ratio, leaf area duration, crop growth rate, net assimilation, biomass of the crop at different
period have been studied. A number of biochemical parameters viz. chlorophyll, total sugar and
proline content in physiologically active leaf have been studied, with different combined dose of
chemical fertilizer, vermicompost and biofertilizer. Then soil health of the experimental field
was judged after harvesting of each crop in terms of PH, EC, organic carbon content and carbon
conservation, available N, P, K, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn content in soil. The biodiversity of soil was also
measured in terms of population of bacteria and fungi or total colony count of them.
Among different growth parameters, mix effect on plant height was observed with reduction of
NPK fertilizer to half of the recommended dose. Sometimes more plant height was observed than
full recommended dose and sometimes lesser results were found. 50% reduction of chemical
fertilizer along with vermicompost failed to supplement chemical fertilizer up to this level of
reduction. But, plant height did not get influenced significantly when 25% NPK fertilizer was
reduced. Vermicompost alone and in combination with bio-fertilizer successfully supplemented
this magnitude of reduction of chemical fertilizer. But maximum plant height in both mustard
and paddy season was recorded in treatment combination which received 75% of full
recommended dose along with vermicompost @ 2.5 t ha-1.
Leaf area index get influenced by the different treatments at all the growth stage but influences
was done more vivid at later stage of growth than on 30 DAT. At later stage, vermicompost
[164]
alone and in combination with biofertilizer was able to supply adequate nutrient. Highest and
lowest LAI value at later stage was recorded for both the crops with 75% of full dose of chemical
fertilizer along with vermicompost @ 2.5 t ha-1(T4) and full recommended dose of chemical
fertilizer (T4).
Among the different treatments applied for mustard, highest angle of primary and secondary
branches were recorded for treatment T3 for both the experimental years. Regarding number of
siliquae per plant, siliquae length, siliquae diameter and seeds per siliquae maximum value were
recorded in case of treatment T4 for both the years’ field trials.
Number of tiller per hill is the basis of yield of the paddy crop as later stages. Panicle emerged
from tiller, number of tillers per hill were also get significantly influenced by the chemical,
organic and bio-fertilizer. The significant influence of vermicompost was noticed for tiller
number but the role of bio-fertilizer on the tiller production was not so prominent in all the years
of study.
This study shown that panicle length in all the years for both the crops significantly influenced
only when 75% of full recommended dose along with vermicompost @ 2.5 t ha-1 (T4) and in
combination with bio-fertilizer (T6) were applied.
One of the more significant and obvious findings to emerge from this study of paddy is that
effective tiller number get influenced by all the treatment combination and all inputs have
significant contribution to the number of effective tiller. Firstly reduction of chemical fertilizer
was not fully supplemented by the vermicompost alone but vermicompost and bio-fertilizer also
played important role towards increasing effective tiller numbers. Secondly, up to 25% reduction
in chemical fertilizer can be substituted by the vermicompost and bio-fertilizer without any loss
in the effective tiller number. These findings enhance our understanding on the role of adequate
supply of major nutrient on the number of effective tiller.
Spikelet’s number of paddy is also get influenced mainly by the amount of chemical fertilizer;
particularly 50% reduction of NPK fertilizer along with cow dung produce lowest number of
spikelet’s per panicle. Like other growth parameters, application of all the inputs in adequate
amount tends to produce maximum number of spikelets per panicle. Here also maximum noticed
with T4.
[165]
Number of filled grain per panicle of paddy in the present study was largely affected by the
amount of vermicompost rather than other inputs. This study has shown that half of the
recommended dose of NPK fertilizer along with cow dung @ 2.5 t ha-1 (T3) unable to produce
sufficient number of filled grain comparable to other doses.
The most interesting observation of this mustard and paddy study is that the test weight gets
altered by the application of vermicompost. The control plot which received only chemical
fertilizer record lower test weight along with treatment T3 which shown lowest test weight.
Returning to the understanding posed at the beginning of this study, it is now possible to state
that vermicompost alone or with PSB and Azotobacter can able to supplement at least one fourth
of NPK fertilizer. The highest yield was obtained with that combination of fertilizer. But, it is
confirmed from this study that vermicompost alone or with bio-fertilizer unable to supplement
50% of the recommended dose of NPK fertilizer to get comparable yield of both mustard and
paddy.
Similar influences of different treatments on straw yield were also found in this study. Highest
straw yield has been associated with 75% of the recommended dose of NPK fertilizer along with
vermicompost.
Biological yield is the sum total of grain and straw yield. Naturally, it is also influenced by the
different treatments. The 75% of the recommended dose of NPK fertilizer along with
vermicompost along with bio-fertilizer recorded comparable biological yields. Whereas,
biological yield drastically reduce when NPK fertilizer are reduce to 50% along with cow dung.
Both vermicompost and bio-fertilizer influences the straw yield significantly.
Harvest index of this study also varied significantly. Highest HI was found with T4 treatment,
whereas, significantly lower results were found with full recommended dose and 50% reduction
of NPK fertilizer alone with vermicompost or cow dung.
The oil content of mustard seeds was highest in the treatment T4 (40.09 and 46.70% for
successive two years) among the different treatments whereas lowest oil content was observed in
treatment T1 which is the full recommended dose of chemical fertilizer. It is clearly shown in this
[166]
experiment that full recommended dose of chemical fertilizer affect the oil content %
significantly and vermicompost improves it very well.
All the morpho-physiological parameters like LAR, CGR, NAR, RGR and LAD have changed
significantly due to different treatment combination and vermicompost and its combination with
bio-fertilizer treated plots showed best results. Same observation was also found in case of
biochemical attributes.
The economic analysis of this study showed that maximum net return can be achieved through
application of 75% full recommended dose along with vermicompost @ 2.5 t ha-1. The most
obvious finding to emerge from this study is that reduction NPK fertilizer up to 25% not only
reduce the cost of cultivation but also it provide same net return as with full recommended dose
of chemical fertilizer. The cost:benefit was also higher in both the crops with 25% less NPK
fertilizer plus vermicompost. Net return and cost:benefit ratio was very poor when 50% NPK
fertilizer was reduced.
The present study also provides additional information with respect to soil health and nutrient
status in post harvest soil. Although PH and electrical conductivity of the post harvest soil was
not significantly altered but slightly increased by the application of vermicompost. Water
holding capacity, porosity, specific gravity and moisture content values were found to be higher
in soil samples after harvesting in comparison to in soil before land preparation in all the years
field trials for 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Organic carbon (%) status was significantly increased by the addition of vermicompost and
results are clearly shown that significant % of carbon conserve in soil where combination of
chemical fertilizer and vermicompost applied.
Available nitrogen status in post harvest soil significantly increased both by the vermicompost
and bio-fertilizer. On an average, an increase in the available nitrogen content in soil after
harvesting in comparison to before land preparation for seed sowing was found in all the
experiments. Every treatment was found to be superior in available nitrogen content in soil after
harvesting than before land preparation for seed sowing.
[167]
Regarding available potassium content in soil there was a subsequent increase in all plots during
the treatment screening. Application of lower doses of potassium does not get reflected in the
post harvest soil but application of vermicompost influenced significantly towards increase in
potassium content of post harvested soil.
Similarly available phosphates phosphorous content in soil was also get influenced by the
vermicompost. All the treatments showed an increasing trend in available phosphate
phosphorous content in soil after harvesting of crops compared to before land preparation for
sowing of seeds.
Available micronutrient (Fe, Cu, Mn, Zn) content in soil are increased by the application of
vermicompost. But, most interesting findings in this regard are that the amount of these
micronutrients increases in soil with the decreasing amount of NPK fertilizer application.
Highest amount of these micronutrients were found in the treatments where 25% less NPK
fertilizer in combination with vermicompost was applied. This may be due to high levels of
indigenous organic matter being present in the soil along with the applied organic matter in terms
of compost bound sufficient quantity of iron as reducible and insoluble form of organic
complexes, in case of Cu it was formation of stable complexes of copper with humic acid and
peat and the metal thus becomes immobilized, in case of Mn it was the microbial decomposition
of added organic matter in continuous crops creates reducing conditions that favor manganese
solubilization and Zn forming stable organic complexes with the soil organic matter resulting
into lesser availability for crop plants by the insoluble chelating reaction, causing resistance to
exchange between plant soils systems and therefore, rendering low crop uptake.
The microbial population of bacteria and fungi in the present study increased in post harvest soil
by the application of vermicompost and bio-fertilizer.
Results suggested that the introduction of a high-yielding crop variety with balanced nutrient
application with NPK fertilizers could be recommended to the end users i.e. farmer communities.
Our present investigation revealed that the best treatment out of the seven applied combination
treatments under this old alluvial soil agro-climatic zone was treatment T4 based on the attributes
of growth, morpho-physiology, in terms of yield (seed yield in case of mustard and grain and
straw yield in case of paddy) and oil content (%) in all the field trials. It was also evident from
[168]
the study that application of vermicompost and biofertilizer helped in increasing organic carbon,
available N, available P, available K and available micronutrient status in soil. Therefore, the
mustard and paddy can be cultivated for a better yield with 75% NPK dose of chemical fertilizers
and vermicompost 2.5 t ha−1 (T4) in the old alluvial soil zone. This means 25% NPK fertilizer
dose can easily be supplemented by natural resource-based and low-cost vermicompost to make
mustard cultivation more productive and profitable over a long period and to step forward toward
achieving the ultimate goal of sustainability in mustard and paddy cultivation. Hence, we suggest
that renewable and low-cost sources of plant nutrients for supplementing chemical fertilizers
should be substituted for NPK fertilizer. This would be affordable for the majority of farming
communities and the use of biofertilizers, vermicomposts and chemical fertilizer could lead to an
increase in yield along with soil biodiversity in the old alluvial soil zone and under the agro-
climatic conditions of Burdwan, West Bengal, India.
[169]
Recommendation
We have pointed out at the beginning of this work that one of the important objectives of this
study was to find out best possible cultivation dose of inorganic, organic and bio-fertilizer for
successful mustard and boro rice cultivation in old alluvial zone of West Bengal. After
evaluating the actual and modified nutrient management practices of rice cultivation, we are in a
position to frame out a recommendation for the farmers of this zone which will offer sustainable
agriculture, more production, more profit and better livelihood to the farmers.
i) Chemical fertilizer: NPK fertilizer at 75% of the recommended dose.
In winter and boro season ¼ nitrogen, full recommended dose of

phosphate and ¾th potash fertilizers to be applied as basal dose
during land preparation i.e. just before transplanting or sowing.
Half of the nitrogen at maximum tillering or growth stage (in
between 30-45 days after sowing or transplanting) and rest ¼ N
and half of the recommended dose of potash to be applied during
silique and panicle initiation stage.
ii) Organic manure: Vermicompost at 2.5 t ha-1 at the time of land preparation.
iii) Bio-fertilizer: Phosphate solubilising bacteria and Azotobacter at 7.5 kg ha-1 each.
This should be mixed together with vermicompost and apply 10
days before final land preparation and transplantations in the main
plot. A gap of ten days between bio-fertilizer and chemical
fertilizer application to be maintained to avoid immediate harmful
effect of chemical fertilizer on the microbial agent.
[170]
Bibliography
Abo-El-Goud SMM. 2000. Agronomic studies on fodder beet. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of
Agriculture, Mansoura University.
Acharya CL, Bishnoi SK, Yaduvanshi HS. 1988. Effect of long term application of fertilizers
and organic and inorganic amendments under continuous cropping on soil physical and chemical
properties in an Alfisol. Indian J Agr Sci. 58(7):509-516.
Adhikari B, Bag MK, Bhowmik MK, Kundu C. 2011. Status paper on Rice in West Bengal.
From Rice Knowledge Management Portal. http://www.rkmp.co.in
Aduloju MO, Mahmood J, Abayomi YA. 2009. Evaluation of soybean [Glycine max (L) Merrill]
genotypes for adaptability to a southern Guinnea Savanna environment with and without P
fertilizer application in north Central Nigeria. Afr J Agric Res. 4:556–563.
Albanell E, Plaixats J, Cabrero T. 1988. Chemical changes during vermicomposting (Eisenia

Andrei) of sheep manure mixed with cotton industrial wastes. Biol Fert Soils. 6:266-269.
Ali AF. 2005. The role of organic manure and some growth regulators on growth, flowering and
bulb production and chemical composition of Iris plants. The 6th Arab Conf Hort, Islamia,
Egypt, Orman No, 90.
Ali N, Javidfar F, Jafarieh Yazdi E. 2003. Relationship among yield components and selection
criteria for yield improvement in winter rapeseed. Pak J Bot. 35:167–174.
Alloway BJ. 1993. Heavy metal in soils. Black Academic, New York. p.339.
Anand IJ, Singh JN, Khanna PP. 1975. Inter-relashionship and Diversity in yellow sarson
(Brassica campestris var. sarson Prain.) Indian J Agr Sci. 45:253-258.
Aneja KR. 2002. Experiments in Microbiology, Plant Pathology, Tissue Culture and Mushroom
Production Technology, New Age International (P.) Limited, New Delhi, India, pp. 157-161.
Ansari AA, Jaikishun S. 2010. An investigation into the vermicomposting of sugarcane bagasse
and rice straw and its subsequent utilization in cultivation of Phaseolus vulgaris L. In Guyana.
Am Eurasian J Agric Environ Sci. 8(6):666-671.
[171]
Bibliography
Applequist LA, Ohlson R. 1972. Rapeseed Cultivation, Composition, Processing and Utilization.
Elsevier Publ. Co., Amsterdam 1972.
Arancon NQ, Edwards CA. 2005. Effects of vermicomposts on plant growth. Paper presented
during the International Symposium Workshop on Vermi Technologies for Developing
Countries (ISWVT 2005), Los Banos, Philippines November 16-18, 2005.
Arancon NQ, Lee S, Edwards CA, Aziyeh RM. 2003. Effect of humic acids and aqueous extracts
derived from cattle food and paper waste vermicomposts on growth of green house plants.
Pedobiologia. 47(5–6):741–744.
Arancon NQ, Edwards CA, Babenko A, Cannon J, Galvis P, Metzger JD. 2008. Influences of
vermicomposts, produced by earthworms and microorganisms from cattle manure, food waste
and paper waste, on the germination, growth and flowering of petunias in the greenhouse. Appl
Soil Ecol. 39:91–99.
Arancon NQ, Edwards CA, Bierman P. 2006. Influences of vermicomposts on field strawberries:
effects on soil microbial and chemical properties. Bioresour Technol. 97:831–840.
Part 2. Effects on soil microbiological and chemical properties. Bioresour Technol. 97:831-840.
Arancon NQ. Edwards CA, Bierman P, Metzger JD, Lee S, Welch C. 2002. Applications of
vermicomposts to tomatoes and peppers grown in the field and strawberries grown unger high
plastic tunnels. Proceedings of the International Earthworm Symposium, Cardiff Wales.
September 2002.
Arancon NQ. Edwards CA, Bierman P, Welch C, Metzger JD. 2004. The influence of
vermicompost applications to strawberries: Part 1. Effects on growth and yield. Bioresour
Technol. 93:145-153.
Arnon DI. 1949. Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplast. Polyphenol oxidase in Beta vulgaris.
Plant Physiol. 24:1-15.
Arora CK. 1971. Association of Azotobacter chroococcum with Bacillus megatherium var.
phosphaticum and Rhizobium species, M.Sc. thesis, PG School, IARI, New Delhi, India.
[172]
Bibliography
Arthamwar DN, Shelke VB, Ekshinge BS. 1996. Effect of nitrogen and phosphorus on yield
attributes, seed and oil yield of mustard (Brassica juncea). Indian J Agron. 41(2):282-285.
Asghar HN, Ishaq M, Zahir ZA, Khalid M, Arshad M. 2006. Response of radish to integrated use
of nitrogen fertilizer and recycled organic waste. Pak J Bot. 38(3):691–700.
Atiyeh RM, Arancon NQ, Edwards CA, Metzger JD. 2000. Influence of earthworm-processed
pig manure on the growth and yield of greenhouse tomatoes. Bioresour Technol. 75:175–180.
Atiyeh RM, Edwards CA, Subler S, Metzger JD. 2000d. Earthworm processed organic wastes as
components of horticultural potting media for growing marigolds and vegetable seedlings.
Compost Sci Utiliz. 8:215–223.
Atiyeh RM, Lee S, Edwards CA, Arancon NQ, Metzger, JD. 2002. The influence of humic acids
derived from earthworms- processed organic wastes on plant growth. Bioresour Technol. 84:7-
14.
Atiyeh RM, Lee S, Edward CA, Arancon NQ, Metzger JD. 2002b. The influence of humic acids
derived from earthworm-processed organic wastes on plant growth. Bioresour Technol. 84:7-14.
Atiyeh RM, Lee S, Edward CA, Sulbar S, Metzger T. 2001. Pig manure vermicompost as a
component of a horticultural bedding plant medium. Effects on physiochemical properties and
plant growth. Bioresour Technol. 78:11-20.
Atiyeh RM, Subler S, Edwards CA, Metzger JD. 1999. Growth of tomato plants in horticultural
media amended with vermicompost. Pedobiologia. 43:724–728.
Ayneabeba A, Fassil A, Mariam AH, Endashaw B. 2001. Studies of Rhizobium inoculation and
fertilizer treatment on growth and production of fababean (Vicia faba) in some ‘yield depleted’
and ‘yield sustained’ regions of Semien Shewa. Ethiopian J Sci. 24(2).
Bachman GR, Metzger JD. 2008. Growth of bedding plants in commercial potting substrate
amended with vermicompost. Bioresour Technol. 99:3155–3161.
Ballasubramanian A. 2002. Effect of pressmud, biofertilizers, graded doses of inorganic on yield

of oil seeds, T.N.A.V Agr. Research Station, Virnijipuram, Tamil Nadu, India. 23(1):141-143.
[173]
Bibliography
Banerjee K, Pramanik BR. 2009. Effect of different doses and sources of phosphorus and
phosphate solubilising bacteria on the growth and yield of kharif rice. Res Crops. 10(3):489–491.
Banerjee A, Datta JK, Mondal NK. 2011. Changes in morpho-physiological traits of mustard
under the influence of different fertilizers and plant growth regulator cycocel. J Saudi Society
Agric Sci. 11:89–97.
Banerjee A, Datta JK, Mondal NK. 2011. Biochemical changes in leaves of mustard under the
influence of different fertilizers and cycocel. J Agric Technol. 8(4):1397-1411
Barik AK, Das A, Giri AK, Chattopadhaya GN. 2006. Effect of integrated plant nutrient
management on growth, yield and production economics of wet season rice (Oryza sativa).
Indian J Agr Sci. 76(11):657–660.
Barakan FN, Salem SH, Heggo AM, Bin-Sinha MA. 1995. Activities of rhizosphere
microorganism as affected by application of organic amendments in a Calcareous loamy soil to
nitrogen transformation. Arid Soil Res Rehab. 9(4):467-480.
Basumantry A, Talukdar MC. 1997. Change in available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium as
affected by integrated nutrient supply system in rice-rice sequence. National Seminar on
Developments in Soil Science held at Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli.
Bates LS, Walden RP, Teare ID. 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water stress
studies. Plant Soil. 39: 205
Bavaskar VS, Zende GK. 1973. Soil fertility under continuous manuring and ropping. Indian J
Agr Sci. 43(5):492–499.
Beijerinck NW. 1901. Uber oligonitrophile mikroben Zbl. Bacterial, parasiten-Kunde.

Infektionskrankh and Hygiene. Abst. 27:561-582.
Bellakki MA, Badanur VP, Shetty RA. 1998. Effect of long term integrated nutrient management
on some important properties of Vertisol. J Indian Soc Soil Sci. 46(2):176-180.
Bhandari AL, Ladha JK, Pathak H, Padre AT, Dawe D, Gupta RK (2002) Yield and soil nutrient
changes in a longterm rice-wheat rotation in India. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 66:162-170.
[174]
Bibliography
Bhardwaj V, Omanwar PK. 1994. Long term effects of continuous rotational cropping and
fertilization on crop yields and soil properties-II. Effect on EC, pH, organic matter and available
nutrients of soil. J Indian Soc Soil Sci. 42(3):387-392.
Bhargava SS, Rathore KS, Siag RK, Makhan Lal. 1981. Response of Azotobacter under varying
levels of nitrogen in bajra under unirrigated conditions. Agric Sci Digest. 1:133-134.
Bhari NR, Sing RK, Mann PS. 2000. Response of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) to nitrogen
and phosphorous on Torripsamments of north-western Rajasthan. Indian J Agron. 45(4):746-751.
Biswas TD, Jain BL, Mandal SC. 1971. Cumulative effect of different levels of manures on the
physical properties of soil. J Indian Society Soil Sci. 19(1):31–37.
Black CA (Ed.). 1965. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part I & Part II. Madison, WI: Am Society
Agron.
Bwamiki DP, Zake JYK, Bekunda MA, Woomer PL, Bergstrom LH, Kirchman. 1998. Use of
coffee husks as an organic amendment to improve soil fertility in Ugandan banana production.
Carbon and nitrogen dynamics in natural and agricultural tropical ecosystem. 113-127.
Canellas LP, Olivares FL, Okorokova-Facanha AL, Facanha AR. 2002. Humic acids isolated
from earthworm compost enhance root elongation, lateral root emergence, and plasma membrane
H? –ATPase activity in maize roots. Plant Physiol. 130:1951–1957.
Chandrasekhar BR, Ambrose G, Jayabalan N. 2005. Influence of biofertilizer and nitrogen

source level on the growth and yield of Echinochloa frumentacea (Roxb.) Link. J Agric Technol.
1(2):223-234
Chango G, Mc Velly PBE. 2001. Relationship of physiological characters to yield parameters in

oil seed rape. Can J Plant Sci. 81:1–6.
Chan PLS, Griffiths DA. 1988. The vermicomposting of pre-treated pig manure. Biol Waste.
24:57-69.
Chaoui I, Zibiliske M, Ohno T. 2003. Effects of earthworm casts and compost on soil microbial
activity and plant nutrient availability. Soil Biol Biochem. 35:295-302.
[175]
Bibliography
Chaudhary PC, Bose R. 1986. Effect of irrigation and fertilizer in the yield of mustard. Indian
Agriculturist. 30(4):435-438.
Chavan DA, Desmukh MS, More SS, Narkhede WN. 2007. Impact of long term fertilizer
application in yield and nutrient availability in sorghum-wheat-cropping system. Paper presented
at State level seminar on soil health enhancement for food and environmental security. Parbhani,
Oct. 12–13.
Choudhury A, Kabi MC. 2003. Effect of N-fixing bio-fertilizer and FYM on rice. Env &
ecology, Dept. of Agricultural chemistry and Soil Science, BCKV, Mohanpur, India, 21(1):196-
199.
Coehran WG, Cox GM. 1959. Experimental Designs. Asia Publishing House, Calcutta. pp. 95-
181.
CPCB. 2000. Status of Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Collection Treatment, and Disposable
in Class 1 Cities. Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environmental and Forests,
Governments of India, New Delhi.
Cuevas GR. 2005. Desarrollo de la lombriz Eisenia fetida Sar. En dos localidades y efecto de la
lombricomposta en maíz en el Soconusco Chiapas. Tesis de Maestría. Universidad Autónoma del
Chiapas. México. 64 p.
Das A, Praad M, Goutam RC. 2003. Residual effect of organic and inorganic sources of nitrogen
applied to cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) on succeeding wheat (Triticum aestivum). Indian J
Agron. 49(3):143–146.
Das DK, Santra GH, Mandal LN. 1995. Influence of blue green algae on the availability of
micronutrients in soils growing rice. J Indian Society Soil Sci. 43(1):145-146.
Das DK. 2007. Micronutrients: Their behavior in soils and plants.2nd revised edition: New
Delhi, India.
Das K, Dang R, Shivananda TN. 2008. Influence of biofertilizers on the availability of nutrients
(N, P, and K) in soil in relation to growth and yield of Stevia rebaudiana grown in South India.
Int J Appl Res Natural Products. 1(1):20–24.
[176]
Bibliography
Datta JK, Ghosh A, Banerjee A, Mondal NK. 2012. Biochemical response of selected plant
species under air pollution stress. Ecol Environ Conserv. 18:957-962.
De Datta SK. 1981. Principles and practices of rice production. New York (NY): John Wiley and
Sons. Chapter 10, Mineral nutrition and fertiliser management of rice. p.348–419.
Dongale JH, Patil BP, Prabhudesai SS, Chavan AS. 1990. Response of mustard to irrigation and
fertilization on lateritic soil in Konkan region. Fertilizer News. 35(10):37-41.
Ebaid RA, El-Refaee IS. 2007. Utilization of rice husk as an organic fertilizer to improve
productivity and water use efficiency in rice fields. African crop science conference proceedings.
8:1923-1928.
Edwards CA, Burrows I. 1988. The potential of earthworm composts as plant growth media in
Neuhauser, C.A. (Ed.), Earthworms in Environmental and Waste Management. SPB Academic
Publishing, The Hague, the Netherlands, pp.211-220.
Edwards CA. 1995. Historical overview of vermicomposting. Biocycle. 36:56-58.
Edwards CA. 1985. Production of feed protein from animal waste by earthworms. Philosophical
transaction of the royal society of London series B. 310:299-307
Edwards CA. 1998. The use of earthworms in the breakdown and management of organic
wastes. In: Earthworm ecology. C. A. Edwards (Ed.) CRC press, Boca Raton, FL. Pp. 327-354.
Edwards CA, Bohlen PJ. 1996. Biology and Ecology of Earthworms, Chapman and Hall,
London.
El-Hawary MI, IEl-Hawary fatma AM, EL-Ghamaryand e. Ei-Naggar. 2002. Effect of

Application of Biofertilizer on the yield and NPK uptake of some Wheat genotypes as affected
by the biological Properties of soil. Pak J Bio Sci. 5(11):1181-1185.
El-Kased FA, Kamh RN, Abd-El-Ghany BF. 1996. Wheat response to bio and mineral nitrogen
fertigated in newly reclaimed sandy soil. Desert Inst Bull. 46:373–386.
[177]
Bibliography
El-Sherbeny SE, Khalil MY, Naguib NY. 2005. Influence of compost levels and suitable spacing
on the productivity of Sideritis montana L plants recently cultivated under Egyptian conditions.
Bulletin Fac Cairo University. 56: 373-392.
El-Zeiny OAH, El-Behariy UA, Zaky MH. 2001. Influence of biofertilizer on growth, yield and
fruit quality of tomato grown under plastic house. J Agric Sci. Mansouera University. 26(3):
1749-1763.
Estevez B, N’Dayegamiye A, Coderre D. 1996. The effect of earthworm abundance and selected
soil properties after 14 years of solid cattle manure and NPK Mg fertilizer application. Can J Soil
Sci. 76:351-355.
Fisher RA. 1960. The Design of Experiments. Oliver and Boyd. London.
Follet R, Donahue R, Murphy L. 1981. Soil and Soil Amendments. Prentice hall Inc., New
Jersey.
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United States (FAO). 2004. Food and population:
FAO locks ahead.
Forde B, Lorenzo H. 2001. The nutritional control of root development. Plant Soil. 232:51–68.
Frederickson J, Butt KR, Morris RM, Daniel C. 1997. Combining vermiculture with traditional
green waste composting systems. J Soil Bio Biochem. 29:725-730.
Garg P, Gupta A, Satya S. 2006. Vermicomposting of different types of waste using Eisenia
foetida: A comparative study. Bioresour Technol. 97:391-395.
Garg RN, Singh G, Das DK, Singhal SK. 1991. Effect of wheat straw, fly ash and FYM on soil
physical properties, growth and yield of maize. National seminar on Advances in soil science
research. 56th annual convention, Indian Society of Soil Science held at Dr. Balasaheb Sawant
Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli. pp. 15-16.
Gattani PD, Jain SV, Sheth SP. 1976. Effect of continuous use of chemical fertilizers and
manures on soil physical and chemical properties. J Ind Soc Soil Sci. 24(3):284-289.
Gerlack M, Vogel, J. (1902): Nitrogen Fixing Bacteria. Zbl. Bakteriol. Abst. 2: 817.
[178]
Bibliography
Gharib FA, Moussa LA, Moussud ON. 2008. Effect of compost and biofertilizer on growth yield
and essential oil of sweet majoram (Majoram hortensis) plant. Int J Agric Biol. 10:381–387.
Gomez KA, Gomez AA. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agril. Res. (2nd ed). John Willey and
Sons, New York.
Grappelli A, Galli E, Tomati U. 1987. Earthworm casting effect on Agaricus bisporus

fructification. Agrochimica. 21:457-462.
Gupta AK, Tripathi VK. 2012. Efficacy of Azotobacter and vermicompost alone and in
combination on vegetative growth, flowering and yield of strawberry (Fragaria x ananassa
Duch.) Cv. Chandler. Progressive Horticulture. 44(2):256-261.
Gupta DM, Chattopadhyay N, Gupta SK. 1986. Effect of Calcutta city waste compost on some
physical and physico-chemical properties of alluvial soil. Ann agric Res. 7(2):346-352.
Gupta PK. 2004. Methods in environmental analysis water, soil and air, Agrobios (India).
Havangi GV, Mann HS. 1970. Effect of rotations and continuous application of manures and
fertilizers on soil properties under dry farming conditions. J Ind Soc Soil Sci. 18(1):45-49.
Hazra T, Goel S. 2009. Solid waste management in Kolkata, India: Practices and challenges.
Waste Manag. 29:470-478.
Hossaen MA, Shamsuddoha ATM, Paul AK, Bhuiyan MSI, Zobaer ASM. 2011. Efficacy of
different organic manures and inorganic fertilizer on the yield and yield attributes of boro rice.
Agriculturists. 9(1–2):117–125.
Howieson JG, Loi A, Carr SJ. 1995. Biserrula pelecinus L. a legume pasture species with
potential for acid duplex soils which is nodulated by unique root nodule bacteria. Aust J Agric
Res. 46:997-1009.
Idris A, Inane B, Hassan MN. 2004. Overview of waste disposal and landfills / dumps in Asian
countries. Mat Cycles Waste Manag. 16:104–110.
Ilin AN. 1986. Influence of mineral fertilizer on yield and quality of spring rape under condition
of Smolensk region. Agro Khimiya. 12:35-39.
[179]
Bibliography
Inanga S, Kurara A, Murala Y. 1979. Studies on matter production of rape plant (Brassica napus
L.) III photosynthesis, respiration and carbon balance sheet of the single pod. Jap J Crip Sci.
48:265-271.
Ismail SA. 2005. The Earthworm Book. Other India Press, Mapusa, Goa. pp. 92.
Ismail SA. 1997. Vermicology: The Biology of Earthworms. Orient Longman Ltd., Chennai,
India.
Ismail S. 1995. Earth worms in soil fertility management. In: Thampan PK, editor. Organic
agriculture. Peekay Cochin (India): Tree Crops Development Foundation. P.77–100.
Jackson ML. 1972. Soil Chemical Analysis, Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.
Jacobson S, Petterson F. 2001. Growth response following nitrogen and N-P-K-Mg additions to
previously N-fertilized Scots pine and Norway spruce stands on mineral soils in Sweden. Can J
Forest Res. 31(5):899-909.
Jana MK, Ghosh BC. 1996. Integrated nutrient management in rice-rice crop sequence. Ind J
Agron. 41(2):183-187.
Jenne E. 1968. Trace inorganics in water. Adv Chem Ser. 73:337–387.
Johnston AM, Janzen, HH, Smith EG. 1995. Long-term spring wheat response to summer fallow
frequency and organic amendment in southern Alberta. Can J Plant Sci. 75(2):347-354.
Jordao CP, Nascentes CC, Cecon PR, Fontes RLF, Pereira JL. 2006. Heavy metal availability in
soil amended with composted urban solid wastes. Environ Monit Assess. 112:309-326.
Kabata–Pendias A. 2000. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants, 3rd edition. New York: CRC Press
LLC.
Kader MA, Mamun AA, Hossain SMA, Hasna MK. 2000. Effects of Azotobacter application on
the growth and yield of transplant aman rice and nutrient status of post harvest soil. Pak J Bio
Sci. 3(&):1144-1147.
[180]
Bibliography
Kale RD. 1998. Earthworm Cinderella of Organic Farming. Prism Book Pvt Ltd, Banglore,
India. p.88.
Kandil AA, Bandawi A, El-Moursy SA, Abdou UMA. 2004. Effect of Planting Dates, Nitrogen
Levels and Bio-fertilization Treatments on: Growth Attributes of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris, L.).
Scientific Journal of King Faisal University. 5(2):227-236.
Kannaiyan S, Govindarajan K, Lewin HD. 1980. Effect of foliar spray of Azotobacter

chroococcum on rice crop. Plant soil. 56(3):487-490.
Kar C, Barua B, Gupta K. 1989. Response of the safflower plant (Carthamus tinctorius L cv JLA
900) toward plant growth retardants dikegulac sodium, CCC and SADH. Ind J Plant Physiol.
32:144–147.
Karthikeyan S. 2003. Role of Biofertilizer in crop plants. Agrobios News letter. 2(6):11-12.
Kaushik P, Garg VK. 2004. Dynamics of biological and chemical parameters during
vermicomposting of solid textile mill sludges mixed with cow dung and agricultural residues. J
Bioresour Technol. 4:203-209.
Kaviraj B, Sharma S. 2003. Municipal solid waste management through vermicomposting

employing exotic and local species of earthworms. Bioresour Technol. 90:169-173.
Kavitha R, Subramanian P. 2007. Effect of enriched municipal solid waste compost application
on soil available macronutrients in the rice field. Arch Agron Soil Sci. 53(5):497-506(10).
Khaliq A. 2004. Irrigation and nitrogen management effects on productivity of hybrid sunflower
(Helianthus annus L.) dissertation for the doctoral degree. Faisalabad (Pakistan): Department of
Agronomy, University of Agriculture Faisalabad.
Khan A, Jilani G, Akhtar MS, Naqvi SMS. 2009. Phosphorus solubilizing bacteria: occurance,
mechanism and their rolein crop production. J Agric Biol Sci. 1(1):48-58.
Khiani KN, Moore DA. 1984. Long-term effects of tillage operations and farmyard manure
application on soil properties and crop yield in vertisol. J Indian Soc Soil Sci. 32(3):392–393.
[181]
Bibliography
Kızılkaya R. 2008. Yield response and nitrogen concentrations of spring wheat (Triticum
aestivum) inoculated with Azotobacter chroococcum strains Ecological Engineering. 33(2,3):
150-156.
Kumar A, Singh DP, Singh B, Yashpal. 2001. Effect of nitrogen application on partitioning of
biomass, seed yield and harvest index in contrasting genotypes of oilseed Brassica. Ind J Agron.
46(1):162-167.
Kumar M, Bhogal NS. 2000. Effect of nitrogen levels and water quality on yield attributes of
mustard. National Seminar on oilseeds and oils. Research and Development needs in the
millennium. Feb. 2-4, DOR, Hyderabad, pp. 139-140.
Kumar S, Bhattacharyya JK, Vaidya AN, Chakrabarti T, Devotta S, Akolkar AB. 2009.
Assessment of the status of municipal solid waste management in metro cities, state capitals,
class I cities, and class II towns in India: An insight. Waste Manag. 29:883-895.
Kumar RR, Singh AR. 1997. Role of balance fertilization in rice-wheat cropping system.
Fertilizer News. 42(4):90-96.
Kumpawat BS. 2006. Effect of phosphorus levels and phosphate solubilizing bacteria on
clusterbean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) and its residual effect on wheat (Triticum aestivum)
under limited water supply]. Crop Res. 31(1):14-16.
Ladha JK, Dawe D, Pathak H, Padre AT, Yadav RL, Singh B, Singh Y, Singh P, Kundu AL,
Sakal R, Ram N, Regmi AP, Gami SK, Bhandari AL, Amin R, Yadav CR, Bhattarai EM, Das S,
Aggarwal HP, Gupta RK, Hobbs PR. 2003. How extensive are yield declines in long-term
ricewheat experiments in Asia? Field Crop Res. 81:159-180.
Lal R. 2007. Anthropogenic influences on world soils and implications to global food security.
Adv Agron. 93:69-93.
Lindsay WE, Norvell WA. 1978. Development of a DTPA test for zinc, iron, manganese, and
copper. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 42(3):421-428.
Lomte MH, Ateeque M, Bharambe PR, Kawarkhe PK. 1993. Influence of Sorghum-Legume
association on physico-chemical properties of soil. J Maharashtra agric Univ. 18(3):388-390.
[182]
Bibliography
Ma BL, Lianne MD, Edward GG. 1999. Soil nitrogen amendment effects on nitrogen uptake and
grain yield of maize. J Agron. 91:650–656.
Mainoo NOK, Barrington S, Whalen JK, Sampedro L. 2009. Pilot-scale vermicomposting of

pineapple wastes with earthworms native to Accra, Ghana. Bioresour Technol. 100:5872–5875.
Maji NC, Mondal SR. 2004. Effect of long term use of fertilizers and manures or soil fertility.
Env Ecol. 22(2):447-451.
Mandal LN, Mitra RR. 1982. Transformation of iron and manganese in rice soils under different
moisture regimes and organic matter applications. Plant Soil. 69:45–56.
Manna MC, Singh MV. 2001. Long term effects of intercropping and biolitter recycling on soil
biological activity and fertility status of subtropical soils. Bioresour Technol. 76(2):143-150.
Marinari S, Masciandaro G, Ceccanti B, Grego S. 2000. Influence of organic and mineral

fertilizers on soil biological and physical properties. Bioresour Technol. 72:9-17.
Marjan Shishehbor, Hamid Madani, Mohammad Reza Ardakani. 2013. Effect of vermicompost
and biofertilizers on yield and yield components of common millet (Panicum miliaceum). Ann
Biol Res. 4(2):174-180.
Ma WC, Brussaard L, De Ridder JA. 1990. Long term effects of nitrogenous fertilizers on
grassland earthworms (Oligochaeta: Lumbricidae) Their relation to soil acidification. Agric
Ecosyst Environ. 30:71-80.
Maynard A. 1993. Evaluating the suitability of MSW compost as a siol amendment in field
grown tomatoes. Compost Science and Utilization. Spring 1993: p. 34-26.
McCready RM, Guggolz J, Siliviera V, Owens HS. 1950. Determination of starch and amylase
in vegetables. Anal Chem. 22:1156.
McLaren RH, Crawford DV. 1973. Studies on soil copper, I: The fractionation of copper in soils.
J Soil Sci. 24:172–181.
Meelu OP, Maskina MS, Singh Y. 1994. Influence of various organic manures on physico-
chemical properties of soil under rice based cropping system. Int Rice Res. Newsletter. 13(4):36.
[183]
Bibliography
Mehrotra CI, Lehri LK. 1971. Effect of Azotobacter inoculation on crop yields. J Ind Soc Soil
Sci. 19:243-48.
Meshram SU, Shende ST. 1982. Response of maize to Azotobacter chroococcum. Plant Soil.
69:265–273.
Mehrvarz S, Chaichi MR, Alikhani HA. 2008. Effects of phosphate solubilizing microorganisms
and phosphorus chemical fertilizer on yield and yield components of Barely (Hordeum vulgare
L.) Am Eurasian J Agric Environ Sci. 3(6):822-828.
Miller PR, Angadi SV, Andros SV, Andros off GL, McConkey Baharganj, McDonald CL,
Brandt SA, Cut Forth HW, Entz MH, Volkmar KM. 2003. Comparing Brassica oilseed crop
productivity under contrasting N fertility regimes in the semiarid northern Great Plains. Can J
Plant Sci. 83(3):489-497.
Miri HR. 2007. Morphophysiological variation basis of variation in rapeseed (Brassica napus L)
yield. Int J Agric Biol. 9(6):845–850.
Mitchell A, Edwards CA. 1997. The production of vermicompost using Eisenia fetida from cattle
manure. Soil Biol Biochem. 29:3–4.
Muhr GR, Datt NP, Sankarasubramoney H, Leley VK, Donahue RL. 1965. Soil testing in India;
U.S. Agency for Indian. Development Mission to India, New Delhi.
Murali MK, Setty RA. 2000. Effect of levels of NPK, vermicompost and growth regulator
(triacontanol) on growth and yield of scented rice (Oryza sativa L.). Mysore J Agric Sci.
34(4):335-339.
Murthy TCS, Nagegowda V, Basavaia, Rajashekhar N. 2006. Influence of nitrogen, phosphorus

and potassium on the vegetative characters of gherkin (Cucumis anguria L.). Crop Res. 31(1):
116-119.
Muscolo A, Bovalo F, Gionfriddo F, Nardi S. 1999. Earthworm humic matter produces auxin-
like effects on Daucus carota cell growth and nitrate metabolism. Soil Biol Biochem. 31:1303–
1311.
[184]
Bibliography
Nagalakashmi TV. 1992. Analysis of genetic divergence, combining ability and heterosis in
Indian Mustard Brassica juncea Ph.D thesis, BHU, Vranasi, UP, India.
Nair J, Sekiozoic V, Anda M. 2006. Effect of pre-composting on vermicomposting of kitchen

waste. Bioresour Technol. 97:2091–2095.
Narayanswamy G. 1990. Role of single super phosphate in the oilseed production and pulses.
Fertilizer News. 35(4):55-60.
Negi M, Sadashivam KV, Tilak KVBR. 1987. A note on the effect of non-symbiotic nitrogen
fixers and organic wastes on the yield and uptake of barley. Biol Waste. 22(3):179-186.
Nethra NN, Jayaprasad KV, Kale RD. 1999. China aster (Callistephus chinensis L.) cultivation
using vermicomposts as organic amendment. Crop Res. Hisar. 17(2):209-215.
Newbould P. 1989. The use of nitrogen fertilizer in agriculture: where do we go practically or

ecologically? Plant soil. 115:297-311.
Nickell LG. 1983. The role of growth regulators and hormones in enhancing food production. In:
Chemistry and World Food Supliers - The New Frontiers (ed.L.W.Shemitt) Pergamon
press,Oxford. 601-606.
Nuruzzaman M, Ashrafuzzaman M, Zahurul Islam M, Rafiqual Islam M. 2003. Field efficiency

of biofertilizer on the growth of okra [Abelmoschus esculentus (L) Moench]. J Plant Nutr Soil
Sci. 166:764-770.
Olk DC, Cassman KG. 1993. Reduction of potassium fixation by organic matter in vermiculitic
soils. Soil Organic Matter Dynamics and Sustainability of Tropical Agriculture. pp. 307-315.
Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watnabe FS, Dean LA. 1954. Estimation of available phosphorous in soils
by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. U.S. Department of Agriculture Circular.
Orozco SH, Cegarra J, Trujillo LM, Roig A. 1996. Vermicomposting of coffee pulp using the
earthworm Eisenia fetida: Effects on C and N contents and the availability of nutrients. Biol
Fertil Soil. 22:162-166.
[185]
Bibliography
Ozer H, Oral E, Dogru U. 1999. Relationships between yield and yield components on currently
improved spring rapeseed cultivars. Turk J Agric For. 23:603–607.
Ozturk L, Demir Y. 2002. In vivo and in vitro protective role of proline. Plant Growth Regul.
38:259-264.
Pandey A, Kumar S. 1989. Potential of Azotobacter and Azospirillum as biofertilizers for upland
agriculture: A review. J Sci Indus Res. 48:134-144.
Panse UG, Sukhatme PV. 1967. Statistical methods for agricultural workers. New Delhi: ICAR;
p.97–123.
Panwar AS, Balyan JS, Verma VS. 2000. Yield and quality of radish (Raphanus sativus) seed as
affected by fertility levels and bio-fertilizers. Ind J Agron. 45(4):822-826.
Parthasarathi K, Balamurugan M, Ranganathan LS. 2008. Influence of vermicompost on the

physic-chemical and biological properties in different types of soil along with yield and quality
of the pulse crop Blackgram. Iran J Environ health Sci Engineering. 5(1):51-58.
Parthasarathi K, Ranganathan LS. 1999. Longevity of microbial and enzyme activities and their
influence on NPK content in pressmud vermicasts. Eur J Soil Biol. 35(3):107-113.
Patel JR, Shelke VB. 1998. Effect of farmyard manure, phosphorous and sulphar on growth,
yield and quality of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea). Ind J Agron. 43(4):713-717.
Patil BP, Dongale JH, Bal AS. 1989. It is profitable to grow rabi mustard on the lateritic soils of
Konkan. Ind Fmg. 36(6):11-12.
Peng SH, Wan-Azha WM, Wong WZ, Go WZ, Chai EW, Chin KL, H’ng PL. 2013. Effect of
using agro-fertilizers and N-fixing Azotobacter enhanced biofertilizers on the growth and yield
of corn. J Appl Sci. 13(3):508-512.
Perumal APS, Sundari A. 2004. Response of rice-fallow blackgram C.V. ADT 5 to the
application of DAP and Phosphobacteria. Legume Res. 27(1):73-74.
Prasad B. 1994. Integrated nutrient management for sustainable agriculture. Fertilizer News.
39(9):19-25.
[186]
Bibliography
Prasad B, Singh RP, Roy HK, Sinha H. 1983. Effect of fertilizer, lime and manures on some
physical and chemical properties of red loam soil under multiple cropping. J Ind Soc Soil Sci.
31(1):601-603.
Prasad B, Singh KDN, Singh BP. 1986. Effect of long term use of fertilizers, lime and manures
on forms and availability of nitrogen in an acidic soil under multiple cropping systems. J Ind Soc
Soil Sci. 34(2):271-274.
Quispel A. 1991. A critical evaluation of the prospects for nitrogen fixation with non-legumes.
Plant Soil. 137:1-11.
Ramanujam S, Rai. 1963. Analysis of yield components in yellow sarson. Ind J Genet. 23:312-
319.
Ramaswami PP, Son TT, Son N. 1997. Effect of organic wastes application on physical and
chemical properties of heavy clay soil. Omon Rice. 5:48–55.
Ram G, Chandrakar BS, Katre RK. 1985. Influence of Azatobacterization in presence of

fertilizer nitrogen on the yield of wheat. J Ind soc soil sci. 33:424-426.
Ram Rao DM, Kodandara Maiah J, Reddy RS, Katiyar, Rahmathulla VK. 2007. Effect of VAM
fungi and bacterial biofertilizers on mulberry leaf quality and silkworm cocoon characteristics
under semiarid condition. Caspian J Environ Sci. 5(2):111-117.
Ramteke JR, Mahadkar UV, Yadav RS. 1998. Sustainable crop production through cropping
system and organic farming. First International Agronomy Congress. Extended summaries
November, 23-27, 1998. New Delhi, India, pp. 393-394.
Rana DS, Bhandari AL. 1993. Personnel communication PAU, Ludhiana.
Rao AV, Sharma RL. 1981. Effect of Azotobacter on wheat and tomato. Ind J Microbiol.
21(1):25-27.
Rao S, Subba Rao A, Takkar PN. 1996. Changes in different forms of K under earthworm
activity. National Seminar on Organic Farming and Sustainable Agriculture, India. pp.9-11.
[187]
Bibliography
Rasool A, Parviz SZ, Mohammad RS. 2008. Effect of vermicompost on growth, yield and
nutrition status of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum). Pak J Biol Sci. 11:1797-1802.
Ravindran KC, Venkatesan K, Balasubramanian T, Balakrishnan V. 2007. Effect of halophytic

compost along with farmyard manure and Phosphobacteria on growth characteristics of Arachis
hypogaea Linn. Sci Total Environ. 384(1-3):333-341.
Reddy GB, Reddy MS. 1998. Effect of organic manures and nitrogen levels on soil available
nutrient status in maize soybean cropping system. J Indian Soc Soil Sci. 46(3):474–476.
Roy ML, Srivastava RC. 2011. Plant growth promotion potential of Azotobacter Chroococcum
on growth, biomass, leaf area index and yield parameters of aman rice in Tripura. Ind J Agric
Res. 45(1):52-58.
Rutanga V, Steiner KG, Karaya NK, Gachene CKK, Nzabonihankuye G. 1998. Continuous
fertilization on non-humiferrous acid oxysols in Rwanda “Plateau Central” soil chemical changes
and plant population. Biotechnol Agron Soc Environ. 2:135–142.
Sadasivam S, Manickam A. 1996. Biochemical Methods, New Age International (P) Ltd. and
TamilNadu Agricultural University.
Saha JK, Panwar N, Singh MV. 2010. An assessment of municipal solid waste compost quality
produced in different cities of India in the perspective of developing quality control indices.
Waste Manag. 30:192-201.
Sah D, Bohra JS, Shukla DN. 2006. Effect of N, P and S on growth attributes of and nutrients
uptake by Indian mustard [Brassica juncea (L.) Czern & Coss]. Crop Res. 31(1):52-55
Santai BE, Daneshiyam J, Amir E, Azarpour E. 2011. Study of organic fertilizers displacement
in rice sustainable agriculture. Int J Acad Res. 3(2):786.
Sarwar G, Hussain N, Schmeisky H, Suhammad S, Ibrahim M, Ahad S. 2008. Efficiency of

various organic residues for enhancing rice – wheat production under normal soil conditions. Pak
J Bot. 40(5):2107–2113.
[188]
Bibliography
Saxena MM. 1998. Environmental Analysis Water, Soil and Air, Agro – Botanica Publisher,
Bikaner, p. 139.
Selviranganathan D, Augistine AD. 1997. Effect of mushroom spent, rice straw and compost on
soil physical, physico-chemical properties of Alluvial and lateritic soil. Madras agric J. 84(1):15-
19.
Setua GC, Das NK, Banerjee ND, Sengupta T, Sudhakar P, Sen S, Saratchandra B. 2005. Effect
of integrated nutrient management on quality leaf production in mulberry (Morus alba) under
rainfed, alluvial soil conditions. Ind J Agric Sci. 75:474-478.
Shabana R, Shrief SA, Ibrahin AF, Gister G. 1990. Correlation and path analysis for new
released double zero spring rape seed cultivates grown under different competitive systems. J
Agron Crop Sci. 165:138-143.
Shah HC. 1959. Influence of magnesium nutrition on oil content of sunflower. Soil Sci. 87:320-
324.
Shahroona B, Naveed M, Arshad M, Zahir ZA. 2008. Fertilizer-dependent efficiency of

Pseudomonas for improving growth, yield and nutrient use efficiency of wheat (Triticum
aestivum L.). Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 79:147-155.
Shanmugam K, Ravi KV. 1980. Effect of organic amendments on physical properties of soil and
yield of sorghum. Madras Agric J. 67(7):445-449.
Sharholy M, Ahmad K, Mahmood G, Trivedi RC (2008). Municipal solid waste management in

Indian cities – A review. Waste Manag. 28:459–467.
Sharma DK, Prasad K, Yadav SS. 2008. Effect of integrated nutrient management on the
performance of dwarf scented rice (Oryza sativa L.) grown in rice-wheat sequence. Int J agric
sci. 4(2):660-662.
Sharma K. 2003. Biofertilizers for sustainable agriculture, 1st Ed. Agrobios, India.
Sharma RP, Roy RK, Jha CB. 1988. Production potential and economic of rice-wheat sequence
as influenced by organic and inorganic fertilizers. Ann agric Res. 9(2):280-283.
[189]
Bibliography
Sharpley AN, Syres JK. 1977. Seasonal variations in casting activity and in the amounts and
release to solution of phosphorous forms in earthworm casts. Soil Biol Biochem. 9:227-231.
Sharma AR. 1978. Pulses in India – Review of changes. Agrobios, India pp.69.
Shukla L, Tyagi SP, Manjunath R, Jeetender J, Saxena AK. 2013. Effect of vermicompost and
microbial inoculants on soil health, growth and yield of HD 2687 wheat (Triticum aestivum). Ind
J Agric Sci. 83(3):101-105.
Shukla SK, Warsi AS. 2000. Effect of sulfur and micronutrients on growth, nutrient content and
yield of wheat. Ind J Agric Res. 34:203–205.
Shuman LM, Li ZB. 1996. Amelioration of zinc in cotton using lime or mushroom compost. J
Soil Cont. 6:425-438.
Siavosh M. Nasiri A. Laware SL. 2011. Effect of organic fertilizer on growth and yield
components in rice (Oryza sativa L.). J Agric Sci. 3(3):217-224.
Sinclair TR, Muchow R, Bennet JM, Hammond LC. 1987. Relative sensitivity of nitrogen and
biomass accumulation to drought in field- grown soybean. Agron J. 79:986-991.
Singh F, Singh B. 2000. Effect of levels of nitrogen and irrigation on the seed and oil yield of
mustard. National seminar on oilseeds and oils research and development needs in the
millennium, Feb. 2-4, Dor, Hyderabad, pp. 141-142.
Singh KP, Ngachan SV. 2001. Effect of bio-fertilizers and crop residue for sustainable rice
(Oryza sativa L.) production in Manipur. Ind J hill farming. 14(2):57-60.
Singh LN, Singh RKK, Singh AH, Chhangte Z. 2005. Efficacy of urea in integration with Azolla
and vermicompost in rainfed rice (Oryza sativa) production and their residual effect on soil
properties. Indian J Agric Sci. 75(1):44–45.
Singh RA. 1999. Nitrogen, sulpher and calcium relationship in sustainable production of Indian
Mustard (Brassica juncea) on denuded land. Ind J Agron. 44(4):820-825.
[190]
Bibliography
Singh S, Singh RN, Prasad J, Kumar B. 2002. Effect of green manuring, FYM and biofertilizer
in relation to fertilizer nitrogen on yield and major nutrient uptake by upland rice. J Ind Soc Soil
Sci. 50(3):313–314.
Singh T. 1977. Studies on the interaction between Azotobacter chroococcum and some plant
pathogens. Ph.D. Thesis, PG school, IARI, New Delhi, India.
Singh UP, Singh SP. 1993. Effect of method of fertilizer application and weed control on
nutrient uptake by mustard (Brassica juncea (L.) Czernj & Cosson) and associated weeds. Ind J
Agron. 38(2):277-281.
Singh Vireshwar, Singh RP, Panwar KS, Singh SM, Singh V. 1993. Effect of inoculation with
Azotobacter on wheat (Triticum aestivum). Ind J Agron. 38(4):648-650.
Sinha P, Jain R, Chatterjee C. 2000. Interactive effect of boron and zinc on growth and
metabolism of mustard. Commun Soil Sci Plant. 31(1-2):41-49.
Sinha RK, Agarwal S, Chauhan K and Valani D. 2010. The wonders of earthworms & its
vermicompost in farm production: Charles Darwin’s ‘friends of farmers’, with potential to
replace destructive chemical fertilizers from agriculture. Agric Sci. 1(2):76-94.
Song KM, Osborn TC, Williams PH. 1990. Brassica taxonomy based on nuclear restriction
fragment length polymorphism (RSLPs) 3.Genomic relationships in Brassica and related genera
and origin of B. oleracea and B. rapa (syn.campestries). Theor Appl Genet. 79:497-506.
Sprenat JI. 1990. Nitrogen Fixing Organisms. London: PS Chapman and Hall.
Subbiah BV, Asija GL. 1956. A rapid procedure for determination of available nitrogen in soils.
Curr Sci. 25:259–260.
Sultana S, Rahul Amin AKM, Hasanuzzaman M. 2009. Growth and yield of rapeseed (Brassica
campestris L.) varieties as affected by levels of irrigation. Am Euras J Sci Res. 4:34–39.
Sundara Rao WVB, Mann HS, Pal NB, Mathur RS. 1963. Bacterial inoculation experiments with
special reference to Azotobacter. Ind J Agric Sci. 33:279-290.
[191]
Bibliography
Suthar S. 2009. Vermicomposting of vegetable-market solid waste using Eisenia fetida: Impact
of bulking material on earthworm growth and decomposition rate. Ecol Eng. 35:914–920.
Suthar S. 2007. Vermicomposting potential of Perionyx sansibaricus (Perrier) in different waste

materials. Bioresour Technol. 98 (6):1231–1237.
Swaminathan C, Srinivasan VM. 2006. Influence of microbial inoculants on seedling production

in teak, (Tectona grandis Linn f.). J Sustain Forestry. 22(3/4):63-76.
Talathi MS, Ramteke JR, Mahadkar UV, Magar SS. 2002. Integrated nutrient management for
sustaining productivity dynamics under rice based cropping systems. Paper presented at 2nd
International conference on sustainable agriculture for food, energy and industry at Beijing,
China. 8-13, Sept, 2002.
Tangcham B, Muanchaeng S, Kaosuraliki S, Aisara P. 2000 Effect of bio-fertilizer in growth and

yield of rice. Proceedings of Soil Science Division, Agriculture Dept., Bangkok, Thailand.
Tejda M, Gonalez. 2009. Application of two vermicompost on a rice crop: Effects on soil
biological properties and rice quality and yield. Agron J. 101(2):336-344.
Terao T, Watnabe I, Matsunaga R. 1997. Agro-physiological constraints in intercropped cowpea.

an analysis. In: Singh, B.B., Mohan, D.R., Dashiell, K.E., Jackai, L.E.N (Eds.), Advances in
Cowpea Research. A co-publication of International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and
Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS), IITA Ibadan, Nigeria,
pp. 129–140.
Tomar S, Singh T, Kumar S, Tomar S, Singh M, Singh S. 1996. Response of Indian mustard
[Brassica juncea (L.) Czernj & Cosson] varieties to nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium
fertilizers. Ind J Agron. 41(4):624-626.
Tomati V, Galli E. 1995. Earthworms, Soil Fertility and Plant Productivity. Acta Zoologica
Fennica, 196:11-14.
Trivedy RK, Goel PK, Trisal CL. 1998. Practical methods in ecology and environmental science,
Enviro Media Publications Karad, (India).
[192]
Bibliography
Uma B, Malathi MV. 2009. Vermicompost as a soil supplement to improve growth and yield of
Amaranthus sp. Res J Agric Biol Sci. 5(6):1054.
Walkely A. 1947. Critical examination of rapid method for determining organic carbon in soils,
effect of variation in digestion conditions and of inorganic soil constituents. Soil Sci. 632:251.
Watson DJ. 1947. Comparative physiological studies on growth of field crops, I variation in net
assimilation rate of leaf area between species and varieties and within years. Ann Bot. 11:141–
146.
Wright GL, Smith RCG, Mc William JR. 1983. Difference between two grain sorghum
genotypes in adaptation to drought stress Crop Growth and Yield responses. Australian J Agric
Res. 34(6):615-626.
Yadav RS. 1998. Performance of organic farming in rice based cropping system. M.Sc. (Agri.)
Thesis, Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli (India).
Zebarth BJ, Neilsen GH, Hogue E, Neilsen D. 1999. Influence des amendements faits de dechets
organiques surcertains proprietes physiques et chimiques due sol. Canadian J Soil Sci. 79:501-
504.
Zhu P, Yang X, Xu Y, Ouyang H, Shen O. 2007. High effective phosphate solubulizing bacteria;
their isolation and promoting effect on corn seedling growth. Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao
Jan. 18(1):107-121.
Zinc TA, Allen MF. 1998. The effects of organic amendments on the restoration of a disturbed
coastal sage scrub habitat. Restor Ecol. 6:52-58.
[193]
This article was downloaded by: [TANUSHREE MONDAL]
On: 28 May 2014, At: 00:58
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gags20
An alternative eco-friendly approach

for sustainable crop production with
the use of indigenous inputs under old
alluvial soil zone of Burdwan, West
Bengal, India
a a a
Tanushree Mondal , Jayanta Kumar Datta & Naba Kumar Mondal
a
Department of Environmental Science, University of Burdwan,
Burdwan, West Bengal 713104, India
Accepted author version posted online: 08 May 2014.Published
online: 23 May 2014.
To cite this article: Tanushree Mondal, Jayanta Kumar Datta & Naba Kumar Mondal (2014): An
alternative eco-friendly approach for sustainable crop production with the use of indigenous inputs
under old alluvial soil zone of Burdwan, West Bengal, India, Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science,
DOI: 10.1080/03650340.2014.921807
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2014.921807
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [TANUSHREE MONDAL] at 00:58 28 May 2014
Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2014.921807
An alternative eco-friendly approach for sustainable crop production

with the use of indigenous inputs under old alluvial soil zone of
Burdwan, West Bengal, India
Tanushree Mondal*, Jayanta Kumar Datta and Naba Kumar Mondal
Department of Environmental Science, University of Burdwan, Burdwan,

West Bengal 713104, India
(Received 8 January 2014; accepted 23 April 2014)
Experiments were conducted on mustard (Brassica campestris cv.B9) in an old alluvial

soil zone of Crop Research and Seed Multiplication Farm, Burdwan University,
Burdwan, West Bengal, India, during the winter seasons of 2011–2012 and 2012–
2013. The aim was to evaluate the use of vermicompost prepared from municipality
waste and Eichhornia mixture and its efficacy on crop growth and yield. Different
combined doses of vermicompost, dried cow dung and chemical fertilizer along with
Azotobacter and phosphate-solubilizing bacteria compared to full recommended dose
of chemical NPK fertilizer (100:50:50) were used to develop an alternative farming
technology for sustainable crop production and conservation of natural resources. The
variety B9 gave a significantly higher seed yield and oil content along with other
growth and yield-contributing factors as well as being the most economically viable
option against treatment T4 (i.e. 75% NPK + vermicompost at 2.5 tons per hectare)
among all the treatments applied for the experiment and was found to be superior to
other treatments in old alluvial soil of Burdwan, India. In both the experimental years,
seed yield and oil content were found to be the best for the treatment T4 and was better
than using chemical fertilizer.
Keywords: vermicompost; biofertilizer; crop growth; crop yield; economic analysis
Introduction
Because of huge population explosion and rapid industrialization in India, there is a
migration of people from rural to urban areas. As the world population is increasing
almost exponentially (Banerjee et al. 2011), there is an urgent need to consider other novel
ways of increasing food production that are compatible with sustainability along with the
retention of environmental quality. About 50 million tons of municipal waste is being
generated every year in various cities of India. This annual generation of waste has
produced challenging issues related to its disposal. At present, the management of organic
waste is a major concern worldwide, as unscientific disposal of waste can adversely affect
the environment by causing offensive odor, ground water contamination and soil
pollution.
Continuous use of inorganic NPK fertilizers results in a deficiency of micronutrients,
an imbalance in soil physico-chemical properties and unsustainable crop production
(Banerjee et al. 2011). With increased costs of inorganic fertilizers, the application of
the recommended dose is difficult to afford for small and marginal farmers. Therefore, the
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
© 2014 Taylor & Francis

2 T. Mondal et al.
current trend is to explore the possibility of supplementing chemical fertilizers with

organic ones that are eco-friendly and cost effective. In this context, integrated nutrient
management could be a viable strategy for advocating judicious and efficient use of
chemical fertilizers with matching addition of organic manures and biofertilizers.
Vermitechnology is the use of surface and subsurface local varieties of earthworm in
composting and management of soil (Ismail 1995). Vermicompost has a large particulate
surface area that provides many microsites for microbial activity and strong retention of
nutrients. Biological nitrogen fixation by living nitrogen fixers will help minimize the
amounts of N fertilizer to be added, improve plant growth and decrease production cost
and environmental risks (El-Hawary et al. 1998; Aly et al. 1999). Garai et al. (2013)
documented that the efficiency of Azotobacter and phosphate solubilizing bacteria (PSB)
was improved when applied in conjunction with vermicompost. In our present investiga-
tion, PSB and Azotobacter are used as biofertilizers. PSB secrete some organic acids that
can solubilize P from insoluble and fixed forms to plant-available forms, whereas
Azotobacter can convert atmospheric N2 into a plant-available form of N in soil.
India is the third largest producer of oil seeds in the world. The production of oil seed
groups, next to food crops, holds a sizable share of the countries’ gross cropped area
(13%). It accounts for 19% of the world’s area and 9% of the global production (Sinha
2003). Mustard (Brassica campestris cv. B9) is an important oil seed crop next to
sunflower, with 30–45% protein content, high nutritive value and a fair supply of soil
moisture during the growing season and a dry harvest period. Research workers have
reported differential responses of different genotypes to fertilizer application (Rashid &
Khan 2008). The adverse impacts of chemical input based on conventional agricultural
practices are being documented and recognized, not only by agricultural scientists and
farmers, but also by policymakers, including environmentalists and consumers.
Simultaneously, the true character and potential of alternative systems are becoming far
better and more widely understood (National Research Council 1989; Paarlberg 1990).
The ultimate goal of sustainable agriculture is to develop farming systems that are
productive and profitable, conserve the natural resources, protect the environment and
enhance health and safety and do so over the long term (Mukhopadhyay et al. 2013).
Hence, this investigation was undertaken to determine the effect of integrated nutrient
management with vermicompost, biofertilizer and inorganic fertilizers on productivity, soil
fertility and health under a mustard cropping system and to screen the best treatment
combination in terms of yield under the agro-climatic conditions of the old alluvial soil
zone of Burdwan, West Bengal, India.
Material and methods

Experimental site
Field experiments were conducted at the Crop Research and Seed Multiplication Farm,
Burdwan University, Burdwan, West Bengal, India. The latitude is 87°50′37.35″ E and long-
itude is 23°15′7.29″ N with an average altitude of 30 m above mean sea level during the winter
seasons of 2011–2012 and 2012–2013 with rapeseed (Brassica campestris L. cv. B9).
Climatic condition
Weekly minimum and maximum temperature, total rainfall, sunshine hours, wind speed
and relative humidity (RH) were recorded. Some climate factors were collected and
Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 3
analyzed. Climate factors in both growing periods were similar but not the same. Both the
growth periods started with moderate temperature where the maximum temperature was
around 29°C and the minimum was around 16°C, and then it cooled and finished again
with similar maximum and minimum temperature conditions. Mean temperature and
higher RH (ranging between 75 and 90%) were similar for both growing cycles. Mean
wind speed (1.3–8.1 km hr−1) and mean sunshine (4.23–7.15 hr per day) were almost the
same in both growing seasons. No rainfall was found in the first growing season (2011–
2012), but in the second season 0–5 mm rainfall was found on average.
Treatment combination and design

The treatments used were as follows:
T1 – Full recommended dose of chemical fertilizer (100:50:50, i.e. 100 kg ha−1
N:50 kg ha−1 P: 50 kg ha−1 K)

T2 – 50% of recommended dose of chemical fertilizer (50 kg ha−1 N:25 kg ha−1
P:25 kg ha−1 K): vermicompost (2.5 t ha−1)
T3 – 50% of recommended dose of chemical fertilizer (50 kg ha−1 N:25 kg ha−1
P:25 kg ha−1 K): dried cow dung (2.5 t ha−1)
T4 – NPK (75% of full dose) + vermicompost (2.5 t ha−1)
T5 – NPK (75% of full dose) + dried cow dung (2.5 t ha−1)
T6 – NPK (75% of full dose) + vermicompost (2.5 t ha−1) + Azotobacter and PSB
(7.5 kg ha−1 each) and
T7 – NPK (75% of full dose) + dried cow dung (2.5 t ha−1) + Azotobacter and PSB
(7.5 kg ha−1 each).
The treatment combinations were replicated thrice and arranged in a randomized block
design (RBD). Individual plot sizes were 4 × 2.5 m2. Row-to-row and plant-to-plant
spacing was 30 and 15 cm, respectively. Irrigation channels measuring 0.5 m wide were in
between the replications to ensure easy and uninterrupted flow of irrigation for each
individual plot. The same treatments were followed for two consecutive years. Chemical
fertilizers were applied at the recommended NPK dose (100:50:50) as per Directorate of
Agriculture, Government of West Bengal, for mustard (Bhattacharyya 1998). Treatment
T1 was treated as the control. Biofertilizer containing Azotobacter chrococcum and
phosphate-solubilizing microorganism (Bacillus polymyxa) was applied at 7.5 kg ha−1
through seed inoculation. Biofertilizer was collected from Nitrofix Laboratories, 25,
Bansdoroni Avenue, Kolkata-70. The colony-forming unit (cfu) of Azotobacter and PSB
were 2.3 × 109 and 2.1 × 108 cell per gram of carrier material, respectively.
Crop establishment
The seeds were soaked in distilled water for 24 hr. Seeds were sown separately in
(4 × 2.5 m2) plots. Sowing dates were 6 December 2011 and 11 December 2012. Dates
of harvesting were 11 March 2012 and 20 March 2013. Chemical fertilizers were used in
the form of urea, single super phosphate and muriate of potash. Vermicompost and
biofertilizers were used during the first field preparation and a gap of 15 days was
maintained between the application of biofertilizer and chemical fertilizer. As per the
guidelines of the Department of Agriculture, chemical fertilizers were used in two splits
such as ½ N + Full P + Full K as basal and ½ N as top dressing. Two hand-weedings at
15–18 DAS (days after sowing) and 38–40 DAS were carried out. The crops of each plot
4 T. Mondal et al.
were harvested separately when 90% of the plant with silique became golden yellow in
color.
Data collection
For the preparation of vermicompost, a pit of 1.5 × 2 m2 and 1.5 m deep was prepared.
Then the pit was filled up with cow dung collected from the surrounding villages and
Eichchornia from local wetlands. Special types of earthworms such as Eisenia foetida
were used for the production of vermicompost. A final layer of soil was applied over the
compost pit and allowed to remain for three months for bacterial decomposition to take
place. After three months, the compost was taken out from the pit and applied to the
experimental field. The physical, chemical and biological properties of the experimental
initial soil and chemical and biological properties of vermicompost and cow dung are
represented in the Tables 1, 2 and 3.

The first irrigation was applied after seed sowing and afterward the crop was irrigated
at regular intervals ranging from 15 days up to 55 days. The crop exhibited no sign of
insect/pest attack and disease incidence; therefore, no crop protection measures were
adopted. The crop was kept free of weeds by providing intercultural and hand hoeing.
Plant samples were collected at intervals of 15 DAS (days after sowing) from 5 to 6
randomly selected locations in each plot from 30 DAS up to 60 DAS of crop growth and
again at harvest. Randomly distributed plant samples were cut at ground level. They were
washed initially with tap water, followed by dilute hydrochloric acid (0.05 N) and finally
with double-distilled water. Tap water and hydrochloric acid (0.05 N) could remove soil
particles attached to the sample and metallic contaminants, respectively, and double-
distilled water washed away the previous two solutions.
Parameters studied
Plant morpho-physiological attributes like root length and plant height, leaf area per plant,
dry weight of whole plant parts, silique length and diameter, fresh and dry weight of silique,
Table 1. Physical, chemical and biological characteristics

of the initial soil (0–15 cm depth).
Characteristics Value
Sand (0.02–0.2 mm) (%) 22.34 ± 2.05

Silt (0.002–0.02 mm) (%) 38.35 ± 3.18
Clay (<0.002) (%) 26.24 ± 3.08
PH (1:2.5 soil:water) 5.89 ± 0.02
CEC (cmol kg−1) 10.21 ± 0.98
Organic carbon (%) 0.98 ± 0.09
Available N (mg kg−1) 12.02 ± 0.007
Available K (mg kg−1) 10.09 ± 2.22
Available P (mg kg−1) 12.53 ± 1.10
DTPA extractable Zn (mg kg−1) 1.24 ± 0.04
DTPA extractable Fe (mg kg−1) 15.25 ± 1.08
DTPA extractable Cu (mg kg−1) 3.28 ± 0.09
DTPA extractable Mn (mg kg−1) 6.53 ± 0.03
Total bacteria (cfu g−1) 28 × 106
Table 2. Chemical and biological characteristics of vermicompost.
N P K Zn Fe Mn Cu
Total bacteria
(%) (cfu g−1)
1.71 ± 0.08 1.18 ± 0.07 0.98 ± 0.02 0.0088 ± 0.001 0.094 ± 0.01 0.024 ± 0.008 0.012 ± 0.004 4.8 × 108
Table 3. Chemical and biological characteristics of cow dung.
N P K Zn Fe Mn Cu
Total bacteria
(%) (cfu g−1)
0.98 ± 0.07 1.01 ± 0.02 0.54 ± 0.03 0.0056 ± 0.001 0.077 ± 0.01 0.016 ± 0.005 0.009 ± 0.001 2.4 × 108
1000 seeds weight (test weight) and seed yield were determined. The numbers of plants
from a one-meter row length were counted at several sites in each plot. From this data the
average number of plants per meter was calculated. The heights of the 10 plants selected at
random from each plot were measured. The total number of filled siliqua per plant was
recorded from the ten randomly selected plants of each plot. The total number of seeds per
siliqua was recorded from ten randomly selected siliqua from each plant. One thousand
seeds were counted randomly from each plot, and after sun-drying their weight was
determined and expressed in grams (g). Plants from each plot were harvested, tied in
bundles, dried and then taken to the threshing floor for threshing. After threshing, the
seeds were cleaned, sun-dried and their weights were recorded. The yields in g m−2 were
converted to kg ha−1. The weights of the harvested plants after sun-drying and before
threshing were recorded. The percentage oil content of the mustard seeds was determined
using Soxhlet’s Ether Extraction method (Association of Official Analytical Communities
1975). Available N was measured by the alkaline permanganate method (Subbiah & Asija
1956). Available P was determined by the Bray II method (Bray & Kurtz 1945). Available K
was extracted by 1 M ammonium acetate (pH = 7.0) and determined by flame photometry
(Rich 1965). Soil organic carbon was determined using the wet digestion method of Walkely
and Black (1934). Soil pH was measured by a pH meter. Pure cultures of Azotobacter
chrococcum isolated from the rhizospheric soil of rice plants of local crop fields of Burdwan
district, West Bengal, India, and of PSB (Bacillus polymyxa) isolated from the municipal
garbage of Burdwan town, West Bengal, India, were used. The strains A. chrococcum were
grown on selective Hi media (HiMedia Laboratories, Mumbai, India) for Azotobacter and
the PSB strain (Bacillus polymyxa) was grown on Pikovskias medium at 30°C on a shaker
incubator at 2.5 Hz. After 48 hr, cells were harvested by centrifugation (6000 × g for
10 min). Cell pellets were washed twice with sterile water. Washed cells were mixed with
sterilized charcoal and used as inoculums for the seed treatments in the field trials.
Statistical analysis
All the experimental data were analyzed separately with two-way ANOVA analysis and
values were expressed as the mean of three replicates. All the experimental data were
subjected to statistical analysis using MINITAB software (http://www.minitab.com). The
statistical significance of differences between the different treatments was compared using
6 T. Mondal et al.
DMRT (Duncan’s Multiple Range Test) at 5% confidence interval (Panse & Sukhatme
1967; Gomez & Gomez 1984).
Economic analysis
Economic comparison among the treatments was done based on average cost of inputs as
well as average return over two years. Individual cost of all inputs as well as return was
recorded in Indian currency (Rupees). Gross return was calculated by summing up the
return from grain and straw. Net return was calculated by subtracting the total cost of
cultivation from gross return. Benefit cost ratio was calculated by dividing total return by
total cost. Prices of urea, single super phosphate (SSP) and muriate of potash (MOP) were
Rs. 450, 820 and 275 per 50 kg, respectively, Rs. 40 per 25 kg of cow dung, Rs. 6 per kg
of vermicompost and Rs. 70 per kg of biofertilizer. The price of mustard seed was Rs.
12,500 per ton.
Results and discussion

Crop growth attributes
Different growth attributes as influenced by chemical fertilizer, biofertilizer and vermi-
compost are presented in Tables 4–7. All the growth attributes varied significantly in both
years. In these years, 25% reduction of recommended chemical fertilizer with vermicom-
post (T4) showed the highest results in maximum growth attributes. Results indicated that
reduced dose of chemical fertilizer combined with vermicompost and biofertilizers
showed maximum values in most of the growth attributes compared to the full recom-
mended dose of NPK fertilizers.
From the experimental results, the significant variations in root length and plant
height of the seven treatments could be generated by different growth rates of mustard
due to the different capacity of photosynthetic carbon assimilation and variable translo-
cation rates into different parts of plants in the experimental years. For the two experi-
mental years, the application of biofertilizers (Azotobacter and PSB) and vermicompost,
along with chemical fertilizers, might have increased the nutrient use efficiency of the
plants as the organic fertilizer acted as an excellent source of macro- and micro-
nutrients, and, therefore, increased the plant height and root length, according to the
findings of Asghar et al. (2006). The presence of bioactive substances associated with
low molecular weight fraction of humic acids, capable of inducing changes in plant
morphology and physiology, has also been reported in vermicompost, which enhanced
root elongation, lateral root emergence and plasma membrane H+-ATPase activity of
roots (Canellas et al. 2002). Some earlier reports (Ozer et al. 1999) revealed positive and
significant correlations between plant height and grain yield in rapeseed. The data
presented in Table 7 assumed that greater leaf area (LA) value shown by treatment T4
in both the years of experiment compared to other treatments reflects the greater light
interception by the mustard plants of this treatment. Greater light interception by the
variety B9 might have led to the higher rate of photosynthesis, which contributed
significantly toward the vegetative growth of the B9 variety, leading to higher LA
value. These findings are in line with some earlier findings in case of soybean crop
(Aduloju et al. 2009). On the other hand, the LA value increased with the stimulating
effect of biofertilizer application, which could have improved the availability of nutri-
ents and their uptake by crop plants (Saeed et al. 2002). The differences in the dry
Table 4. Growth attributes of B9 mustard variety depending on biofertilizer, vermicompost and chemical fertilizer treatments during the winter cropping seasons
of 2011–2012 and 2012–2013.
Root length (cm) Plant height (cm)

2011–2012 2012–2013 2011–2012 2012–2013
Treatments 30 DAS 45 DAS 60 DAS 30 DAS 45 DAS 60 DAS 30 DAS 45 DAS 60 DAS 30 DAS 45 DAS 60 DAS
T1 7.72a 9.42a 14.25ab 9.41ab 12.09a 15.33c 9.85a 31.92a 76.83d 14.11a 38.60a 80.67ab
T2 6.50a 9.85a 13.52ab 9.04ab 12.99a 15.14c 10.86a 30.75a 87.20bc 14.15a 33.46a 78.29b
T3 5.95a 9.44a 12.07b 8.69ab 12.11a 12.48d 10.55a 32.18a 80.72cd 14.34a 37.01a 79.77b
T4 4.81a 9.98a 16.08a 9.94a 12.73a 19.03a 10.63a 34.64a 102.08a 14.74a 38.51a 77.44b
T5 5.52a 9.59a 14.05ab 9.03ab 11.71a 15.48c 10.65a 29.75a 88.58bc 14.80a 34.80a 78.90b
T6 5.86a 9.92a 13.03ab 8.87ab 13.00a 17.23b 11.60a 33.94a 94.83ab 14.13a 38.47a 82.59ab
T7 8.17a 9.32a 12.17b 8.55b 13.01a 16.10c 9.01a 31.60a 93.30ab 15.03a 35.20a 85.68a
SEM± 1.07 0.34 1.01 0.39 0.59 0.32 1.57 1.81 2.95 2.96 2.80 1.64
CV% 29.0 6.2 12.9 7.5 8.2 3.5 26.0 9.8 5.7 9.0 13.3 3.5
CD (0.05) 4.32 2.45 4.21 0.53 1.01 2.36 5.24 5.63 7.19 7.21 7.01 5.37
LSD (0.05) 3.29 1.06 3.12 1.22 1.82 0.98 4.83 5.58 9.09 2.31 8.63 5.06
Notes: Means followed by the same letter between treatments are not significantly different at the 5% level using Duncan’s multiple range test (DMRT). Means of three replicates are
taken. Where T1 – Full recommended dose of chemical fertilizer, T2 – 50% of recommended dose of chemical fertilizer + vermicompost (2.5 t ha−1), T3 – 50% of recommended dose
of chemical fertilizer + dried cow dung (2.5 t ha−1), T4 – NPK (75% of full dose) + vermicompost (2.5 t ha−1), T5 – NPK (75% of full dose) + dried cow dung (2.5 t ha−1), T6 – NPK
(75% of full dose) + vermicompost (2.5 t ha−1) + Azotobacter and PSB (7.5 kg ha−1 each), T7 – NPK (75% of full dose) + dried cow dung (2.5 t ha−1) + Azotobacter and PSB
(7.5 kg ha−1 each). SEM, standard error of the means; CV, coefficient of variation; CD, critical difference; LSD, least significant difference.
7
of 2011–2012 and 2012–2013.
Fresh weight of root and shoot per plant (g) Fresh weight of leaves per plant (g)
2011–2012 2012–2013 2011–2012 2012–2013
b a a ab a a b abc ab c ab
T1 1.01 6.29 13.22 0.91 6.45 16.16 0.44 2.95 4.48 0.72 3.27 4.85a
T2 0.97b 5.02a 11.96ab 0.94ab 5.04a 11.55ab 1.03a 2.32bc 3.54ab 1.03abc 2.75ab 3.93ab
T3 0.82b 6.07a 11.82ab 0.87b 6.15a 11.24ab 1.01a 2.66abc 3.23ab 0.80bc 3.47a 3.48ab
T4 1.48a 6.03a 13.56a 1.23ab 5.52a 12.73ab 1.38a 3.51a 4.68a 1.19ab 2.81ab 4.57ab
T5 1.21ab 4.65a 9.37b 1.18ab 6.30a 12.43ab 0.86ab 3.29ab 3.23ab 1.10abc 3.44a 4.28ab
T. Mondal et al.
T6 0.99b 5.99a 10.43ab 0.93ab 5.39a 10.33b 1.06a 2.24c 3.03b 0.97abc 2.52b 2.94b
T7 1.03b 5.83a 11.85ab 1.27a 5.77a 12.19ab 1.49a 3.31ab 3.24ab 1.30a 3.10ab 3.71ab
SEM± 0.13 0.50 1.09 0.11 0.63 1.5 0.16 0.30 0.48 0.14 0.26 0.49
CV% 20.8 15.3 16.0 18.2 18.8 21.0 27.3 18.0 22.7 23.2 14.8 21.5
CD (0.05) 1.50 2.97 4.37 1.39 3.32 5.12 0.53 2.30 2.89 1.55 2.13 2.93
LSD (0.05) 0.40 1.55 3.35 0.34 1.94 4.61 0.50 0.93 1.47 0.42 0.80 1.51
Note: For abbreviations, see footnote Table 4.

of 2011–2012 and 2012–2013.
Dry weight of root and shoot per plant (g) Dry weight of leaves per plant (g)
2011–2012 2012–2013 2011–2012 2012–2013
a b b a a a ab a c c ab
T1 0.76 3.49 6.57 0.09 0.79 3.53 0.64 2.28 4.48 0.14 0.48 0.87c
T2 0.31a 4.00ab 8.87ab 0.09a 0.88a 2.67ab 0.62ab 2.28a 4.87c 0.14c 0.56a 0.67c
T3 0.46a 4.11ab 7.63b 0.07a 0.85a 2.33b 0.48b 2.47a 3.23c 0.13c 0.61a 0.60c
T4 0.36a 5.31a 17.37a 0.07a 0.81a 2.61b 0.65ab 2.47a 9.35a 0.18ab 0.49ab 2.48a
T5 0.47a 3.58b 11.75ab 0.11a 0.81a 2.78ab 0.85ab 1.88a 3.23c 0.16bc 0.56a 1.12bc
T6 0.41a 4.71ab 14.54ab 0.09a 0.75a 2.45b 0.79ab 2.48a 6.70a 0.14c 0.42b 1.56b
T7 0.64a 4.60ab 12.81ab 0.12a 0.80a 2.73ab 1.10a 2.37a 3.240c 0.19a 0.51ab 0.71c
SEM± 0.18 0.48 2.73 0.01 0.09 0.27 0.15 0.26 0.54 0.01 0.04 0.18
CV% 63.0 19.4 14.53 28.9 20.1 17.0 35.6 19.3 18.6 11.1 13.0 26.9
CD (0.05) 1.76 2.89 6.91 0.52 1.28 2.17 1.63 2.13 3.07 0.42 0.82 1.77
LSD (0.05) 0.54 1.47 8.40 0.05 0.40 0.82 0.46 0.79 1.65 0.03 0.12 0.55
Note: For abbreviations see footnote Table 4.

9
10
of 2011–2012 and 2012–2013.
Fresh weight of silique per Dry weight of silique per

plant (g) plant (g) Leaf area per plant (cm2)
2011–2012 2012–2013
Treatments 2011–2012 2012–2013 2011–2012 2012–2013 30 DAS 45 DAS 60 DAS 30 DAS 45 DAS 60 DAS
a bc a b b ab c b f
T1 13.39 12.07 10.24 9.18 12.49 220.3 106.9 43.15 158.5 132.6bc
T2 11.69a 11.43bc 9.11a 7.28b 14.95b 179.2b 115.8abc 47.06ab 182.7c 138.7bc
T3 8.41a 9.49c 5.48a 6.96b 16.58ab 207.2ab 106.1c 40.39b 173.0d 127.7bc
T4 16.48a 19.93a 12.58a 14.09a 17.25ab 222.5ab 142.1a 49.00ab 216.1a 198.8a
T5 11.03a 11.95bc 8.03a 9.10b 16.03b 196.9ab 113.9bc 48.49ab 168.2de 110.5c
T. Mondal et al.
T6 13.67a 12.83bc 10.71a 10.68ab 22.74a 252.9a 138.3ab 48.48ab 194.1b 164.3ab
T7 18.11a 14.27b 15.25a 8.72b 16.74ab 236.5ab 120.6abc 56.74a 161.3ef 147.9bc
SEM± 3.10 1.28 2.99 1.43 25.51 179.58 8.15 98.06 2.70 13.14
CV% 40.4 16.9 50.8 26.2 19.9 14.3 11.7 10.28 2.6 15.6
CD (0.05) 7.37 4.74 7.24 5.00 21.15 56.11 11.96 41.46 6.88 15.18
LSD (0.05) 9.55 3.95 9.22 4.40 5.90 552.6 25.12 9.13 8.32 40.48

weights were due to the treatment potentiality, which might contribute toward greater
final yields. These findings confirmed those reported by Bachman and Metzger (2008)
that vermicompost increased root fresh and dry weight in French marigold, pepper,
tomato and cornflower.
Joshi and Vig (2010) reported a significant increase in growth parameters with
application of vermicompost in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). According to Forde
and Lorenzo (2001) root growth and branching are favored in a nutrient-rich environment
and in the presence of hormones such as auxins that enable the plant to optimize the
exploitation of available resources, which are in turn transformed into photo-assimilates
and transported again to the root, consequently influencing plant growth and morphology
in a systemic manner. Vermicompost having hormone-like activity aids in greater root
initiation, increased root biomass and enhanced plant growth (Bachman & Metzger 2008).
Arancon et al. (2004) reported positive effects of vermicompost on the growth and yield
of strawberries, especially increases in LA, shoot dry weight and fruit weight under field
conditions.
Crop yield attributes

Vermicompost has influenced the number of siliques per cluster, number of clusters per
plant, mean fruit weight and total fruit yield per plant over control according to Arancon
et al. (2006, 2008); Bachman and Metzger (2008) also reported growth and yield
improvement in different crops with vermicompost application. The results clearly indi-
cate that the plants receiving vermicompost had produced more seeds per silique, silique
per plant and large-sized fruits siliques with higher total yield than those of the control.
Vermicompost contains most nutrients in plant-available forms such as phosphates,
exchangeable calcium, soluble potassium and other macro-nutrients with a huge quantity
of beneficial microorganisms, vitamins and hormones, which influence the growth and
yield of plants (Theunissen et al. 2010).
Seed yield and quality (oil content) are more important than total biological yield,
which results from different combinations of many physiological processes based on the
environment under which the crop is grown. Seed yield and quality depend upon the
production of photosynthates and their distribution among various plant parts and trans-
location of photosynthates are directly or indirectly dependent on seed production prac-
tices. In the consecutive years of this trial, the highest and lowest seed yield and oil
content were recorded in T4 (75% NPK + vermicompost 2.5 t ha−1) and T1 (full
recommended dose of chemical fertilizer), respectively (Tables 8 and 9). In treatment
performance, the highest and lowest straw yields were obtained in T4 and T1, respec-
tively, for both consecutive years (Table 9). Both results are statistically significant. The
inoculation of mustard seeds with the biofertilizer Azotobacter and PSB along with
chemical fertilizers and vermicompost contributed significantly toward the increase in
straw yield, as was reported by El-Kased et al. (1996). During the second year (2012–
2013), the increase in oil content of the crop plants might have been due to either the
increased vegetative growth or changes in leaf oil gland population and monoterpenes
biosynthesis under the influence of biofertilizers and vermicompost (Gharib et al. 2008).
In some earlier studies, Ali et al. (2003) observed a significant correlation between
siliquae number and yield in rapeseed. In our study, seeds per siliquae increased in a
combined dose of chemical fertilizer and vermicompost-treated plots due to the optimum
moisture level of soil for B9 compared to the control treatment, which helped produce
longer siliquae, thick silique and higher number of seeds (Sultana et al. 2009). The
12
Table 8. Yield attributes of B9 mustard variety depending on biofertilizer, vermicompost and chemical fertilizer treatments during the winter cropping seasons of
2011–2012 and 2012–2013.
Silique length (cm) Silique diameter (cm) No. of seeds per silique No. of silique per plant Oil content (%)
Treatments 2011–2012 2012–2013 2011–2012 2012–2013 2011–2012 2012–2013 2011–2012 2012–2013 2011–2012 2012–2013
a b a a ab bc bcd bc e
T1 4.1 4.2 1.2 0.6 20.10 19.80 46.56 46.44 32.11 37.20e
T2 4.4a 4.3ab 1.4a 0.6a 20.77ab 21.03abc 51.11abc 51.00ab 33.64d 39.00d
T3 4.3a 4.3ab 1.5a 0.6a 21.80ab 22.13a 40.33d 40.78c 33.91d 37.34e
T4 4.5a 4.3ab 1.2a 0.6a 22.97a 22.77a 59.00a 57.11a 40.09a 46.70a
T5 4.4a 4.3ab 1.1a 0.6a 20.83ab 21.00abc 42.89cd 43.33bc 37.86b 42.45c
T6 4.2a 4.4a 1.3a 0.6a 21.77ab 21.77ab 54.44ab 47.89abc 35.79c 45.12b
T. Mondal et al.
T7 4.0a 4.2ab 1.3a 0.6a 19.33b 19.37c 45.78bcd 44.44bc 34.65cd 44.45b
SEM± 0.25 0.05 0.20 0.02 0.85 0.63 3.12 2.99 0.42 0.29
CV% 10.0 2.2 27.3 7.0 6.9 5.1 11.1 11.0 2.1 1.2
CD (0.05) 2.09 0.99 1.89 0.65 3.85 3.31 7.40 9.69 7.24 2.25
LSD (0.05) 0.77 0.17 0.63 0.07 2.61 1.93 9.62 9.21 0.85 0.89
Table 9. Yield attributes of B9 mustard variety depending on biofertilizer, vermicompost and chemical fertilizer treatments during the winter cropping seasons of
2011–2012 and 2012–2013.
Soil bacteria count after Soil fungal count after

1000 seeds weight per Seed yield Straw yield harvesting harvesting
plant (g) (t ha−1) (t ha−1) (cfu g−1 dry soil) (cfu g−1 dry soil)
Treatments 2011–2012 2012–2013 2011–2012 2012–2013 2011–2012 2012–2013 2011–2012 2012–2013 2011–2012 2012–2013
T1 2.53a 2.64bc 1.05c 1.03d 1.78c 1.65b 68d 58d 11d 9.33c
T2 2.68a 2.76ab 1.08c 1.08cd 2.15ab 2.22a 90c 92c 13.67cd 15.67b
T3 2.57a 2.56bc 1.28ab 1.47ab 2.08abc 1.70b 82.67c 83.33c 12.33cd 9.67c
T4 2.56a 2.98a 1.42a 1.67a 2.28a 2.47a 124.33a 129a 25.67a 21.33a
T5 2.60a 2.61bc 1.13bc 1.12cd 1.92bc 1.75b 97bc 106b 17.67bc 15.67b
T6 2.55a 2.53bc 1.27ab 1.32bc 2.38a 2.53a 130.67a 129.33a 19.67b 21.33a
T7 2.43a 2.39c 1.10c 1.15cd 2.20ab 1.68b 104.67b 102b 14.33bcd 17.33ab
SEM± 0.08 0.10 51.63 80.14 101.44 153.87 7.71 5.36 3.01 2.45
CV% 5.2 6.4 7.5 11.0 8.3 13.5 7.7 5.4 18.4 15.5
CD (0.05) 1.16 1.30 30.08 37.48 42.17 51.94 22.58 20.3 4.8 3.6
LSD (0.05) 0.24 0.30 9.42 11.73 13.20 16.26 8.97 6.25 3.51 2.85

13
14 T. Mondal et al.
variation between the treatment results were generated by the relationship between the
number of seeds per siliquae and plant potential for increasing siliquae or seed number, as
reported by Miri (2007). Regarding test weight, there was little difference between the
treatments in the first year but in the second year T4 showed the highest yield among the
treatments. Evans (1993) mentioned that the seed size is dependent on environmental
conditions, genotype and the potential of the genotype in producing seed number. The
application of compost along with biofertilizer and chemical fertilizer provided an ade-
quate and balanced supply of nutrients throughout their growth period, resulting in the
maximum number of siliquae per plant. Our findings corroborated the findings of Khaliq
(2004). The highest seed yield appeared in T4 in the second year of the experiment in
terms of the number of siliquae per plant, number of seeds per siliquae and test weight of
seeds. The increase in the test weight of seeds was probably due to the balanced supply of
nutrients both from chemical fertilizer and from compost throughout the grain filling and
development period, which was in accordance with the findings of Rutanga et al. (1998)
and Ma et al. (1999).
The biofertilizers significantly increased the yield of mustard, which then could have
enhanced the nutrient use efficiency by the crop plants in the presence of vermicompost
and biofertilizer. This indicated that a reduced dose of N and P fertilizers in combination
with biofertilizer + vermicompost had a remarkable effect on increasing seed yield and
reducing environmental pollution. Therefore, such agrotechnology will boost the seed
yield of mustard crop through these treatment combinations. Our findings confirmed the
observations of increased yield through the combined use of NPK fertilizer and vermi-
compost by Garai et al. (2013) in rice and by Dwivedi and Singh (2007) in mustard oil
cake and betel vine. A 25% reduced dose of chemical fertilizer along with vermicompost
and PSB (T6) showed the highest bacterial population in both the years and treatment T4
had results similar to T6, whereas the full recommended dose of chemical fertilizer
showed the lowest bacterial and fungal populations (Table 9). In the case of fungal colony
count 75% NPK + vermicompost 2.5 t ha−1 (T4) showed the highest value in both the
experimental years (Table 9). Overall the decrease in the soil bacterial population count in
full chemical dose-treated plots after harvesting indicated a deleterious effect of the sole
application of the recommended dose of chemical fertilizer on the population of bacteria
in natural soil. The increase in bacterial and fungal populations in biofertilizer- and
vermicompost-treated plots could be due to the rapid multiplication of bacteria applied
through seed inoculation in a suitable soil medium. The vermicompost contributed toward
the increase in nutrients, growth hormones and vitamins and improving other physical
characters in soil, which might have a significant influence on microbial population
(Ismail 1995). This therefore indicates that chemical fertilizer application at the recom-
mended dose is not congenial for growth of bacteria whereas its reduced dose along with
seed inoculated biofertilizer resulted in more growth of bacterial population under such
investigations.
Economic analysis
Table 10 shows that in the 1st and 2nd years the addition of low-cost biofertilizer
effectively supplemented a portion of chemical fertilizer (25% NPK) in T4 to produce
the maximum gross return (Rs. 56,667 and 66,667), net return (Rs. 25,233 and 26,233) as
well as the benefit cost ratio (1.80 and 2.12). With addition of gradually increasing
amounts of low-cost organic manure along with biofertilizer and reduced dose of chemical
fertilizer, the cost of cultivation increased to some extent, but the accumulated impact was
Table 10. Average cost of production and economic return in Rupees ha−1 (years 2011–2012 and 2012–2013).
Fixed cost (except Cost of chemical

chemical fertilizer, fertilizer,
vermicompost, biofertilizer and Total
biofertilizer) vermicompost cost Gross Return Net Return Benefit:cost ratio
2011–2012 2012–2013
Treatment A B C 2011–2012D 2012–2013E 2011–2012F 2012–2013G I = D/C J = E/C
T1 20,780 7562 28,342 42,000 41,333 13,658 12,991 1.48 1.46

T2 20,780 11,344 32,124 43,333 43,333 11,210 11,201 1.35 1.35
T3 20,780 10,344 31,124 51,333 58,667 20,210 27,544 1.65 1.88
T4 20,780 10,654 31,434 56,667 66,667 25,233 35,233 1.80 2.12
T5 20,780 9654 30,434 45,333 44,667 14,900 14,233 1.49 1.47
T6 20,780 12,230 33,010 50,667 52,667 17,656 19,656 1.53 1.59
T7 20,780 11,230 32,010 44,000 46,000 11,990 13,990 1.37 1.44

15
16 T. Mondal et al.
more positive in the case of gross return, net return as well as in a benefit:cost ratio. The
maximum gross return, net return and benefit:cost ratio were recorded in T4 where
vermicompost was added at 2.5 t ha−1 with 25% reduced recommended chemical fertilizer
dose. The comparative economic analysis shows that a reduction of chemical fertilizer
application with a combination of biofertilizer and vermicompost proved extremely
beneficial and it reached its pinnacle in T4.
Conclusion
Results suggested that the introduction of a high-yielding crop variety with balanced
application of NPK fertilizers could be recommended to the end users. Our present
investigation revealed that the best treatment out of the seven applied combination
treatments under this old alluvial soil agro-climatic zone was treatment T4 based on the
attributes of growth, morpho-physiology and in terms of yield and oil content in both field
trials. Therefore, the mustard cultivar B9 can be cultivated for a better yield of mustard
with 75% NPK dose of chemical fertilizers and vermicompost 2.5 t ha−1 (T4) in the old
alluvial soil zone. This means 25% NPK fertilizer dose can easily be supplemented by
natural resource-based and low-cost vermicompost to make mustard cultivation more
productive and profitable over a long period and to step forward toward achieving the
ultimate goal of sustainability in mustard cultivation. Hence we suggest that renewable
and low-cost sources of plant nutrients for supplementing and complementing chemical
fertilizers should be substituted for NPK fertilizer. This would be affordable for the
majority of farming communities and the use of biofertilizers, vermicomposts and che-
mical fertilizer could lead to an increase in yield in the old alluvial soil and under the
agro-climatic conditions of Burdwan, West Bengal, India.
Acknowledgement
We acknowledge the help we received from the staff members of Rural Technology Centre, The
University of Burdwan, West Bengal, India.
Funding
This work was supported by University Grants Commission (UGC) under UGC major research
project having basic research grant from Government of India (Ref No. R.T.I/1249/55) dated 1 July
2011) to Prof. J.K. Datta, the Principal Investigator of this project.
References
Aduloju MO, Mahmood J, Abayomi YA. 2009. Evaluation of soybean [Glycine max (L) Merrill]
genotypes for adaptability to a southern Guinnea Savanna environment with and without P
fertilizer application in north Central Nigeria. Afr J Agric Res. 4:556–563.
Ali N, Javidfar F, Jafarieh Yazdi E. 2003. Relationship among yield components and selection
criteria for yield improvement in winter rapeseed. Pak J Bot. 35:167–174.
Aly SSS, Soliman SM, Elakel KA, Alinit ME. 1999. Significance of free nitrogen fixing bacteria
and nitrification inhibitors on saving the applied nitrogen to wheat plants. Biol Fert Soils.
4:347–365.
Arancon NQ, Edwards CA, Babenko A, Cannon J, Galvis P, Metzger JD. 2008. Influences of
vermicomposts, produced by earthworms and microorganisms from cattle manure, food waste
and paper waste, on the germination, growth and flowering of petunias in the greenhouse. Appl
Soil Ecol. 39:91–99.
effects on soil microbial and chemical properties. Bioresour Technol. 97:831–840.
Arancon NQ, Edwards CA, Bierman P, Welch C, Metzer JD. 2004. Influence of vermicomposts on
field strawberries: effect on growth and yields. Bioresour Technol. 93:145–153.
Asghar HN, Ishaq M, Zahir ZA, Khalid M, Arshad M. 2006. Response of radish to integrated use of
nitrogen fertilizer and recycled organic waste. Pak J Bot. 38:691–700.
Association of Official Analytical Communities. 1975. Official methods of analysis of analytical
chemistry. In: Hartwitz W, editor. 12th ed. Washington (DC): AOAC.
Bachman GR, Metzger JD. 2008. Growth of bedding plants in commercial potting substrate
amended with vermicompost. Bioresour Technol. 99:3155–3161.
Banerjee A, Datta JK, Mondal NK, Chanda T. 2011. Influence of integrated nutrient management on
soil properties of old alluvial soil under mustard cropping system. Commun Soil Sci Plan.
42:2473–2492. doi:10.1080/00103624.2011.609256
Bhattacharyya BK. 1998. Soil tests based fertilizer recommendations for principal crops and
cropping sequences in West Bengal. Bulletin No. 2. Calcutta: Department of Agriculture,
Government of West Bengal.
Bray RH, Kurtz LT. 1945. Determination of total, organic, and available forms of phosphorus in
soils. Soil Sci. 59:39–45.
Canellas LP, Olivares FL, Okorokova-Facanha AL, Facanha AR. 2002. Humic acids isolated from
earthworm compost enhance root elongation, lateral root emergence, and plasma membrane H?
–ATPase activity in maize roots. Plant Physiol. 130:1951–1957.
Dwivedi DK, Singh SP. 2007. Effect of nutrient integrated bio-fertilizer, vermicompost and mustard
oil cake + inorganic on betelvine (Piper betle L.) crop. Asian J Horti. 2:102–105.
El-Hawary FI, Ibrahim I, Hammouda F. 1998. Effect of integrated bacterial fertilization on yield and
yield component of wheat in sandy soil. J Agric Sci Mansoura Univ. 23:1951–1957.
El-Kased FA, Kamh RN, Abd-El-Ghany BF. 1996. Wheat response to bio and mineral nitrogen
fertigated in newly reclaimed sandy soil. Desert Inst Bull. 46:373–386.
Evans LT. 1993. Crop evolution, adaptation and yield. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University
Press.
Forde B, Lorenzo H. 2001. The nutritional control of root development. Plant Soil. 232:51–68.
Garai TK, Datta JK, Mondal NK. 2013. Evaluation of integrated nutrient management on Boro rice
in alluvial soil and its impacts upon growth, yield attributes yield and soil nutrient status. Arch
Agron Soil Sci. 60:1–14.
Gharib FA, Moussa LA, Moussud ON. 2008. Effect of compost and biofertilizer on growth yield
and essential oil of sweet majoram (Majoram hortensis) plant. Int J Agric Biol. 10:381–387.
Gomez KA, Gomez AA. 1984. Statistical procedure for a agricultural research. 2nd ed. New York
(NY): Wiley.
Ismail S. 1995. Earth worms in soil fertility management. In: Thampan PK, editor. Organic
agriculture. Peekay Cochin (India): Tree Crops Development Foundation; p. 77–100.
Joshi R, Vig AP. 2010. Effect of vermicompost on growth, yield and quality of tomato
(Lycopersicum esculentum L). Afr J Basic Appl Sci. 2:117–123.
Khaliq A. 2004. Irrigation and nitrogen management effects on productivity of hybrid sunflower
(Helianthus annus L.) dissertation for the doctoral degree. Faisalabad (Pakistan): Department of
Agronomy, University of Agriculture Faisalabad.
Ma BL, Lianne MD, Edward GG. 1999. Soil nitrogen amendment effects on nitrogen uptake and
grain yield of maize. J Agron. 91:650–656.
Miri HR. 2007. Morpho-physiological basis of variation in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) yield. Int J
Agric Biol. 9:845–850.
Mukhopadhyay M, Datta JK, Garai TK. 2013. Steps toward alternative farming system in rice. Eur J
Agron. 51:18–24.
National Research Council. 1989. Alternative agriculture. In: Committee report on the role of
alternative farming methods in modern production agriculture, Board on Agriculture.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press; p. 448.
Ozer H, Oral E, Dogru U. 1999. Relationships between yield and yield components on currently
improved spring rapeseed cultivars. Turk J Agric For. 23:603–607.
Paarlberg D. 1990. The changing policy environment for the 1990 farm bill. In the promise of low-
input agriculture: a search for sustainability and profitability. J Soil Water Conserv. 45:8.
18 T. Mondal et al.
Panse UG, Sukhatme PV. 1967. Statistical methods for agricultural workers. New Delhi: ICAR; p.
97–123.
Rashid A, Khan RU. 2008. Comparative effect of varieties and fertilizer levels on barley (Hordeum
vulgare). Int J Agric Biol. 10:124–126.
Rich CI. 1965. Elemental analysis by flame photometry. In: Black CA, editor. Methods of soil
analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties. Madison (WI): American Society of
Agronomy; p. 849–864.
Rutanga V, Steiner KG, Karaya NK, Gachene CKK, Nzabonihankuye G. 1998. Continuous fertili-
zation on non-humiferrous acid oxysols in Rwanda “Plateau Central” soil chemical changes and
plant population. Biotechnol Agron Soc Environ. 2:135–142. [field crop Abstract, 51: 8921].
Saeed N, Hussain M, Saleem M. 2002. Interactive effect of biological sources and organic amend-
ments in the growth and yield attributes of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L). Pak J Agric Sci.
39:135–136.
Sinha S. 2003. Effect of different levels of nitrogen on the growth of rapeseed. Environ Ecol.
21:741–743.
Subbiah BV, Asija GL. 1956. A rapid procedure for determination of available nitrogen in soils.
Curr Sci. 25:259–260.

Sultana S, Rahul Amin AKM, Hasanuzzaman M. 2009. Growth and yield of rapeseed (Brassica
campestris L.) varieties as affected by levels of irrigation. Am Euras J Sci Res. 4:34–39.
Theunissen J, Ndakidemi PA, Laubscher CP. 2010. Potential of vermicompost produced from plant
waste on the growth and nutrient status in vegetable production. Int J Physic Sci. 5:1964–1973.
Walkely A, Black CA. 1934. An examination of different methods for determining soil organic
matter and proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 37:29–38.

Thesis Tanushree Mondal PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis Tanushree Mondal PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis Tanushree Mondal PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Municipal waste management through vermicomposting and its

impact on crop growth, physiology, yield, soil health, soil

THESIS SUBMTTED FOR PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR

TANUSHREE MONDAL, M.Sc (Env Sc)

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

THE UNIVERSITY OF BURDWAN

WEST BENGAL, INDIA

WEST BENGAL, INDIA

PROFESSOR JAYANTA KUMAR DATTA DATE: 15/12/2014

I extend my sincere thanks to Dr. Naba Kumar Mondal, Assistance professor,

I am grateful to Prof. A. R. Ghosh, presently The Head of the Department, Department of

I am indebted to Dr. Srimanta Gupta, Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental

I am highly grateful to Dr. Shampa Dutta, guest faculty (contractual) of Department of

I am thankful to Dr Sudipto Mondal, Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental

Finally I express my heartiest appreciation to my mother Smt. Monalisa Mondal, my

Place: (TANUSHREE MONDAL)

ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS USED

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 10-34

3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 35-77

3.1 Experimental site 35

4.48 Soil PH (after harvesting) (2011-12 and 2012-13) of mustard 142

This fateful scenario of chemical agriculture augmented the movement of organic

Vermitechnology is the use of surface and subsurface local varieties of earthworm in

In this context eco-friendly biofertilizers became handy to minimize chemical fertilizer

The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) recommended an intake rate of 20 g of

The recent concern of policy makers, environmentalists and farmers is to maintain

In this context eco-friendly, environmentally safe biofertilizers become handy to

i) To develop an agrotechnology from the municipal waste of Burdwan town.

The concept of using earthworms to stabilize organic wastes (vermicomposting) is not

1.1 Effect of chemical fertilizer treatments on different varieties of crop species

1.2 Effect of chemical fertilizer treatments on yield attributes

Rao and Sharma (1981) reported improvement in some morpho-physiological characters

Ram et al., (1985) studied the influence of Azotobacter as biofertilizer in presence of

In undivided USSR a commercial biofertilizer under the name ‘Phosphobacterin’ was

organic phosphorous in soil. Therefore, genetic manipulation of phosphate-solubilizing bacteria

Kumpawat (2006) conducted a field experiment during 1999-2000 to 2001-02 revealed

Ravindran et al., (2007) conducted one field experiment on application of halophytic

A study was conducted by Jacobson and Petterson (2001) on growth responses to

Ballasubramanian (2002) conducted an experiment in 1998 to evaluate the effect of

Crop yield is a complex heritable character depends on its morphological and

3.2.1 Vermicompost Technology

improved vermicomposting of kitchen waste. A 9-day thermocomposting prior to

Sinha et al., 2010 stated that Vermiculture technology is emerging as an

3.2.2 Effect of vermicompost on plant growth and development

Biological fertilizer with 50% of chemical fertilizers (nitrogen, phosphorous and

3.2.3 Effect of vermicompost on crop yield

Integrated nutrient management constituting vermicompost and farmyard manure in

4. Effect of combined dose of chemical fertilizer, biofertilizer, vermicompost and compost

5.1 Effect of organic manures and fertilizers on physical properties of soil

Parthasarathi et al., (2008) observed in a field experiment conducted during 2002-2003

5.2 Effect of organic manures and fertilizers on chemical properties of soil

Sharma et al., (1988) at Palampur perceived that application of Lantana as a green

A study was conducted by Kavitha et al., (2007) in the Department of Environmental

i) To develop an agrotechnology from the municipal waste of Burdwan town.

3.1 Experimental site

3.2 Climatic Condition

Fig 3.1 Study Area of Mustard

Fig 3.2 Study Area of Paddy

4th 33.0 25.8 91 12.3 10.1 0